9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d an amount of ₹ 50 lacs was agreed to be received on 15.1.2011 and further an amount of ₹ 50 lacs on 15.2.2011. The sale deed was to be executed on 20.2.2012 on which date the remaining sale consideration was to be paid. A perusal of the cancellation deed dated 21.2.2011 reveals that the said agreement was cancelled and that the purchasers had received back the entire amount which was paid by them as earnest money to the assessee and others. However, surprisingly, the said cancellation deed does not bear signatures of the alleged purchasers. A bare perusal of the same shows that the same is a fictitious document, whereupon, the signatures have been put on of certain persons which do not match at all with the signatures on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 22.12.2015 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Hissar [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)]. 2. Earlier this appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal for non prosecution vide order dated 27.06.2016, however, the said order of the Tribunal was recalled vide order dated 4.11.2016 passed by the Tribunal in M.A. No. 58/Chd/2016. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was heard afresh on merits. 3. The assessee in this appeal has taken following grounds of appeal:- 1. Because the action for upholding the addition of ₹ 74,95,000/- is being challenged on facts and law while treating the same as income by invoking the provisions of section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee preferred an appeal before us. 7. During appellate proceedings, additional evidence in the shape of bank statement of HDFC bank and copy of Cancellation agreement dated 21.02.2011 were furnished under rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, which were sent by the CIT(A) to Assessing Officer for examination. Assessing Officer submitted his remand report and found bank statements to be genuine. But copy of Ikrarnama and cancellation deed were not considered as genuine as these were not registered documents. Further, assessee was asked to produce purchasers from whom advanced money against sale of land was claimed to had been received, but the assessee failed to produce them and nobody attended the office of the Assessing Office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is not registered document which can be relied upon. D) This cancellation deed does not mention the mode and time of payment. In this case, there are cash credit in the bank statement and the assessee has failed to establish the identity, credit worthiness and capacity of co-buyers from whom he had received this cash. These five co-buyers are found to be not filing any return of income. Their bank statements and confirmations have not been filed to prove the credit worthiness of these buyers. Further, nobody has attended before AO to support the claim of the assessee regarding these cash credits. Assessee has also failed to produce any receipt/proof of having repaid the amount of ₹ 75 lakhs to co- buyers on account o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. Relying on these judgements and facts of the case, 1 upheld the addition of 74,95,000/- made by the assessing officer in this case . In result, the appeal is dismissed. 8. Being aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has come in appeal before us. 9. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has reiterated the submissions as were made before the lower authorities. He has further placed reliance on the paper book page 53 which is a copy of the Agreement to sell ( ikrarnama ) dated 18.12.2010 vide which the assessee allegedly received ₹ 50 lacs as earnest money. The Ld. counsel has further placed reliance on the paper book page 42 which allegedly is cancellation deed dated 21.2.2011. The Ld. counsel has also plac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the assessee and other co-sharers on 18.12.2010 and an amount of ₹ 50 lacs was agreed to be received on 15.1.2011 and further an amount of ₹ 50 lacs on 15.2.2011. The sale deed was to be executed on 20.2.2012 on which date the remaining sale consideration was to be paid. Further, a perusal of the cancellation deed dated 21.2.2011 reveals that the said agreement was cancelled and that the purchasers had received back the entire amount which was paid by them as earnest money to the assessee and others. However, surprisingly, the said cancellation deed does not bear signatures of the alleged purchasers. A bare perusal of the same shows that the same is a fictitious document, whereupon, the signatures have been put on of cert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
