9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 867X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause no statement of sellers were recorded by the department. If there was some doubt, revenue ought to have recorded statement of the seller along with statement of witnesses. The Department does not have any other evidence other than the so-called banachhitti wherein appellant s son has made an agreement to purchase land at the rate of ₹ 27 lakhs. On the basis of aforesaid so-called banachhitti, addition cannot be made. The Department ought to have collected more evidences and should have recorded the statement of the other concerned parties. Thus, in view of the inadequate/insufficient evidence and enquiry, we delete the addition - Decided in favour of assessee. - IT(ss)A No.100/Ahd/2013 (Assessment Year : 2006-07) - - - Date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant s case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding addition under Section 69B of the Act on account of alleged unexplained investment of ₹ 3,21,000 in land bearing Survey No.2/2 at Piplaj. He ought to have deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 4. (a) In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant s case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding addition under Section 69C of the Act on account of alleged unexplained expenditure of ₹ 51,000 for purchase of land at Survey No.17 at Piplaj. He ought to have deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. (b) Without prejudice to the above, learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that land at Survey No.17 has never b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s shown land payment of ₹ 2 lakhs through cheques, which is as per Registered Sale Deed, differential amount of ₹ 25 lakhs was added to the total income of Assessee as unexplained investment under Section 69B of the Act. The addition of ₹ 25 lakhs made by Assessing Officer was confirmed by learned CIT(A) mainly on following reasons: (a) As per seized document, the banakhat for land was prepared on 21st December, 2005 and as such document was found in the custody of Assessee during search, i.e. 6th August, 2009, banakhat is authenticated banakhat. (b) The argument of appellant that banakhat was not signed was rejected on the ground that same does not make any difference. (c) As piece of land was subsequently pur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aluable article exceeds the amount recorded in this behalf in the books of account maintained by the assessee for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about such excess amount or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the excess amount may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year. 5. On the other hand, the Ld.DR s contention is that paper was found having signature whatever property details were mentioned on seized paper was purchased by the son of the appellant and it has been admitted by the appellant that the said piece of land was subsequently purchased by him and land was transferred by him and there is no reason as to why the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rchase of flat but no evidence could be brought on record by Revenue to show that in fact assessee had paid on-money to developers, and no document containing signature of assessee or handwriting of assessee to corroborate above making of payment by assessee was found during course of search, addition on account of such alleged payment was not justified. 6.1. In our considered opinion and on the basis of aforesaid so-called banachhitti, addition cannot be made. The Department ought to have collected more evidences and should have recorded the statement of the other concerned parties. Thus, in view of the inadequate/insufficient evidence and enquiry, we delete the addition of ₹ 2,50,000/-. 7. So far as ground No.5 relating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
