9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1034X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... advance made to Smt. Sumti Devi for purchase of land, it is worth noting that ₹ 55,00,000/- was paid in cash. The appellate authority while deleting the addition has taken a tubular vision of the issue involved. The only basis was that advance received cannot be treated as income, the aspects mentioned in the above para were not considered. It was not merely that the advance received was treated as income, the addition was made as the said money was used for purpose other than procuring the land for TATA Housing Development Company's project and no document/ evidence was produced to support the claim that there was no surplus being generated from the said advance. The aspect that the assessee was getting the sale deeds execute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order of the Ld. CIT(A), deleting the addition of ₹ 4,46,75,000/- made by the assessing officer for advance money received or determining income earned in this transaction with M/s Hash Builders Pvt. Ltd., particularly when assessee had failed to bring on record any agreement/contract essential to ascertain the genuineness of transaction or adduce evidence in support that no surplus was generated, since advance was made to potential sellers? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is not perverse in upholding the order of the Ld. CIT(A) by deleting the addition of ₹ 4,46,75,000/- made by the assessing officer for advance money received by assessee, even though &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... advance received of ₹ 4,46,75,000/- was not utilized by the assessee for advance to the proposed sellers, rather it was utilized elsewhere and the appellate authorities failed to appreciate the said aspects while deleting the addition. [5] Learned senior counsel for the assessee contended that the advance received is not an income. She places reliance upon Section 2(24) of the Act. Further to buttress the contention states that Section 56(2)(ix) was only amended in the year 2014, it is by virtue of the said amendment that advance received was brought within taxation ambit, the said amendment is not applicable for the year in question. It is submitted that the objection i.e. agreement of authorisation was not produced is duly met ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not complete in the sense that it was not substantiated that the seller had received the same amount as paid by M/s Hash Builders Pvt. Ltd. to the assessee. Without furnishing the relevant documents, the assessee claimed that no surplus was generated from the advance which was with the assessee to the tune of ₹ 4,46,75,000/-. [7] The assessing officer, from the information collected, made the following table to establish that the amount of advance received was being used by the assessee for the purpose other than procuring land for M/s Hash Builders Pvt. Ltd.:- Sr. No. Name of a/c holder Natuer of account Amount Remarks of assessing off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an Singh who declined the said investment. There was one entry of advance made to Smt. Sumti Devi for purchase of land, it is worth noting that ₹ 55,00,000/- was paid in cash. [9] The appellate authority while deleting the addition has taken a tubular vision of the issue involved. The only basis was that advance received cannot be treated as income, the aspects mentioned in the above para were not considered. It was not merely that the advance received was treated as income, the addition was made as the said money was used for purpose other than procuring the land for TATA Housing Development Company's project and no document/ evidence was produced to support the claim that there was no surplus being generated from the said ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
