9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 401X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t remember but it was as per sale deed executed . When once the said Shri Indravadan Intwala in his categorical examination in respect of the consideration received by him has clearly stated that he had received the consideration in respect of land sold to the assessee as per sale deed executed by him. Therefore, there was no doubt left for the Revenue to discard the said statement made during cross examination of said Shri Indravadan Intwala. The Revenue Authorities have misinterpreted, misconstated the statement of Shri Indravadan Intwala wherein he has nowhere mentioned the specific amount of on money received from the assessee, on the contrary had specifically and in clear words had admitted in cross examination to question no.3 that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in making addition of ₹ 3,50,000/- on account of alleged unexplained cash credit. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in making addition of ₹ 25,52,780/- on account of alleged unaccounted investment in land. 3. It is therefore prayed that the above addition made by assessing Officer and confirmed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may please be deleted." 3. Brief facts of the present case are that the original assessment u/s.143(3) was passed on 31.12.2006 after making disallowances on account of cash credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.08.2016 the appellant submitted that "Appellant submits that the confirmations from all the persons and their PANs were furnished before Hon'ble CIT(Appeals) during first appellate proceedings. Appellant relied on the same during remand proceedings. It is submitted that loans were received from Manish Patel and Jyoti Patel amounting to ₹ 1,50,000/- and from P B Dave amounting to ₹ 2,00,000/-. It may be noted that the loans were received by account payee cheques. It is pertinent to note that confirmations from both of them were filed during first appellate proceedings which are not disputed by AO. As such the allegation of failure on the part of Appellants to produce actual confirmation for these two persons is misplac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in a reply to a Q. No. 7 reiterated that the said land admeasuring 62550 Sq. Mtrs. Is sold for consideration of₹ 8,25,000/- o The Investigating Officer recording the statement, thereafter in Q. No. 8, the tone and tenor of which suggests putting indirect pressure on. Shri Indravadan, referred to some transactions undertaken by Shri Naginbhai Intwala and his family members in respect of nearby lands bearing S. No. 228, 346, 236, 345, 235 and 381, allegedly admitted by him to have been sold at the iate of ₹ 54.00 per Sq. Mtr. In reply to this Q. No. 8 it appears thai Shri Indravadan feeling pressure tated that since Shri Naginbhai Intwala whose pices of lands are nearby my land and has admitted having sold the same at rate of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsels for both the parties and we have also perused the material placed on record, judgments cited by the parties and the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities. As per the facts of the present case, the additions were made by the AO on account unaccounted investment made by the assessee. From the facts of the case, we noticed that one Shri Indravadan Intwala who had sold land, block no.445 admeasuring 62550 Sq.Mtrs to the assessee @ ₹ 54 per Sq.Mtr. However, the documents with regard to registration of the same was prepared only for ₹ 19.15 per Sq.Mtr. The said Shri Indravadan Intwala who had sold his land to the assessee had admitted that the remaining amount was accepted by him as 'on money' and treated the same as his 'una ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsideration in respect of land sold to the assessee as per sale deed executed by him. Therefore, there was no doubt left for the Revenue to discard the said statement made during cross examination of said Shri Indravadan Intwala. The Revenue Authorities have misinterpreted, misconstated the statement of Shri Indravadan Intwala wherein he has nowhere mentioned the specific amount of 'on money' received from the assessee, on the contrary had specifically and in clear words had admitted in cross examination to question no.3 that the sale consideration received by him was 'as per sale deed executed'. 10. We are also of the view that the sale deed executed by the Shri Indravadan Intwala in favour of assessee was a registered document and ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
