9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - As in case of CIT Vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi [1982 (2) TMI 28 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] for the proposition that interest in bank statement and pass book cannot qualify that addition u/s. 68 of the Act. CIT(A) also noted that the assessee has filed unsigned confirmation and also no compliance was made regarding notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act thereafter finally learned CIT(A) held tha AO in this case has not observed or place on record as regards whether the assessee was mandatorily required to maintain books of accounts or not. Having said that and relying on the jurisdictional decision of the High Court, addition made by the AO in the absence of the books of accounts maintained by the assessee be deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urn of income on 23.08.2014 declaring total income of ₹ 4,75,130. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) and income was assessed at ₹ 1,05,59,840 vide order dated 22.12.2016 after making the disallowance of ₹ 5,00,000 on account of loan confirmation not provided and hence, unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act and ₹ 95,84,710 being the capital gains deduction claimed by the assessee. The assessee is an individual deriving income from house property, business income, capital gains and other sources. The assessee had borrowed monies of ₹ 5,00,000 from Shri P.S. Bajaj and filed the loan confirmation. The said loan confirmation did not bear any signature or PAN of Mr. Bajaj. No response was received to the n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e gains into a new flat and submitted a copy of allotment letter. The assessee did not furnish the purchase agreement of the flat and accordingly, the AO disallowed the deductions claimed u/s. 54 of ₹ 76,25,040 and 54F of ₹ 19,59,670 and added ₹ 95,84,710 to the total income. 6. Against the above order the assessee is in appeal before learned CIT(A) Learned CIT(A) as regards the issue of deduction u/s. 54 and 54F noted the facts as under : I have perused the allotment letter issued by the Builder, K Mordan Realty dated 04.02.2014. As per the said letter, Fiat No. 1102 on the 11th floor of the proposed new building to be constructed on the land would be allotted to the assessee. The building named Sooraj Prakash was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding on you and shall not be altered or modified in any manner whatsoever. The intent of both the parties is clearly reflected in the allotment letter that the agreement for sale would be entered once the necessary approvals are obtained and the allotment letter is binding on both the parties. 7. Thereafter learned CIT(A) referred to Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of Hill JB Wadia (69 Taxman 114), ITAT decision in the case of Sudeshkumar G. Nagdev and several other High Court decisions. Thereafter learned CIT(A) concluded as under : The AO has also observed in the assessment order that the amounts paid under the letter of allotment can be returned as the same are in the nature of advances and hence, the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tatement and pass book cannot qualify that addition u/s. 68 of the Act. Learned CIT(A) also noted that the assessee has filed unsigned confirmation and also no compliance was made regarding notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act thereafter finally learned CIT(A) held that : The AO in this case has not observed or place on record as regards whether the assessee was mandatorily required to maintain books of accounts or not. Having said that and relying on the jurisdictional decision of the High Court, I am of the view that the addition made by the AO in the absence of the books of accounts maintained by the assessee be deleted. 9. Against this the Revenue is in appeal before us. 10. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
