9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 1194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clearly deserve to be set-aside and the matter needs to be examined a fresh as per law. Unsecured loan transaction with M/s Grass Field Villa Pvt Ltd to be satisfactorily explained which we again found to be unacceptable - CIT-A referred to balance sheet, income tax return and bank statement of M/s Grass Field Villa Pvt Ltd and another firm by name of M/s Grass Field Farms and Resorts Pvt ltd to hold the transaction to be duly explained however, he has again failed to consider the necessary attributes of such loan transaction in terms of tenure, purpose, rate of interest, repayment and hypothecation/guarantee for availing such loan transaction and no finding has been recorded by him in this regard. Similar finding has been recorded by the ld CIT(A) regarding loan transaction with Mahender Kumar Meena which deserve to be set-aside to be examined afresh. During the course of hearing, the ld AR has sought to submit additional evidence by way of bank statement of Shri Ashish Choudhary in support of another unsecured loan transaction of ₹ 26,00,000/- which again needs to be verified. Investment being made out of assessee s own funds - No finding recorded by either of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition made by the AO u/s 69 to the extent of ₹ 34,50,000/- ignoring the fact that addition u/s 69 can only be made when the investment is not recorded in the books of accounts. 2. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in enhancing the assessment by ₹ 14,48,700/- on account of expenses incurred on stamps duty simply on the basis of remand report of the AO, without providing the assessee on opportunity to rebut it. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has purchased certain pieces of land situated at Village- Vatika, Tehsil- Sanganer, Jaipur bearing Khasra No. 1182 to 1221, 1223 to 1235, 1242 to 1248 from Sh. Lachhu, Sh. Sultan, Sh. Arjun and Sh. Prabhu Narayan. The assessee has invested an amount of ₹ 2,41,94,000/- in purchasing the said pieces of land. The assessee was asked to explain source of funds which were used in purchasing the said pieces of land vide show cause dated 02.03.2015. In compliance, the A/R of the assessee submitted copy of the purchase deeds and also filed confirmation of unsecured loan taken from four persons namely Sh. Mahendra Ku ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee and remaining transactions of ₹ 34,50,000/- have been found as not satisfactorily explained and to that extent, the additions were sustained. It was submitted that the assessee is in appeal as far as the additions sustained by the ld. CIT(A) however as far as relief granted by the ld. CIT(A), there is no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) and the assessee thus relies on the order of the ld. CIT(A) and the same should be confirmed. 6. Now coming to the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee vis- -vis the addition of ₹ 34,50,000/- sustained by the ld. CIT(A) and enhancement of income by ₹ 14,48,700/- done by the ld CIT(A). 7. In this regard, the ld. AR submitted that the appellant had purchased agricultural lands at Vatika village, Sanganer, from four different parties for ₹ 2,41,94,900/-. Part consideration of ₹ 49,09,800/- for these lands was paid during the year, and further expenses of ₹ 14,48,700/- on Stamp duty and Registration charges were incurred, the funds for which were arranged by obtaining unsecured loans aggregating ₹ 82,14,000/- from four parties. Confirmations from all the four persons were filed duly indicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to his means and genuineness of the transaction. Also it is a matter of fact that where the identities of creditors are shown by the assessee, the department is at liberty to proceed against such creditor wherever required. This view has been upheld by the Tribunal in the case of Mrs. Ranjana Katyal Vs ACIT (2008) 1 DTR (Del)(Trib) 24 and Pankaj Sawhney Vs ITO (2004) 3 SOT 1 (Del). In this case, the identity and the address was shown by the appellant. 11. It was further submitted that it is presumed, subject to rebuttal, that transaction cannot be considered as bogus when the funds are routed through bank accounts as they cannot be considered as unaccounted monies being the purpose for which the provision was introduced and also the bank statements are very much subject to scrutiny of the department. In support, reliance was placed on decision in case of S.K.Jain Vs ITO (2004) 2 SOT 579 (Agra). Thus, it had become fairly settled law that assessee is not required to satisfy the Assessing Authority of the source of source. The appellant had duly discharged the onus cast on him in respect of cash credits. It was for the AO to prove that the cash credits were not genuine through f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee was put to the notice by the ld. CIT(A) and therefore, it is not correct to say that the assessee was not provided an opportunity by the ld. CIT(A) before making such addition. The ld. DR accordingly supported the order and the findings of ld. CIT(A) in this regard. 15. We have heard the rival submissions and purused the material available on record. During the year under consideration, the assessee has purchased certain pieces of land situated at Village Vatika, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur bearing Khasra No. 1182 to 1221, 1223 to 1235, 1242 to 1248 from Sh. Lachhu, Sh. Sultan, Sh. Arjun and Sh. Prabhu Narayan for a total consideration of ₹ 2,41,94,000/-. The conveyance deeds for the purchase of these pieces of land were registered with Sub-Registrar, Sanganer, Jaipur on 21.11.2011 and an amount of ₹ 14,48,700/- was also paid towards the stamp duty. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to explain source of funds which were used in purchasing the said pieces of land vide show cause dated 02.03.2015. In compliance, the A/R of the assessee submitted copy of the purchase deeds and also filed confirmation of unsecured loans totaling ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 69,75,000/- remains to be adjudicated upon as the same has not been found satisfactorily explained at the end of the AO. Thereafter, after considering the submissions of the assessee, held that out of ₹ 69,75,000/-, ₹ 35,25,000/- has been found explained and remaining ₹ 34,50,000/- remains unexplained and the additions were thus restricted to ₹ 34,50,000/-. Further, the ld CIT(A) made an addition of ₹ 14,48,700/- towards the payment of stamp duty. 16. The undisputed facts which are thus emerging from the perusal of records are that there is an investment of ₹ 2,41,94,000/-in purchase of the aforesaid pieces of land besides stamp duty of ₹ 14,48,700/- totalling to ₹ 2,56,42,700/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the source of such investment was sought to be examined by the AO. The source of such investment has been claimed by the assessee by way of unsecured loans of ₹ 82,14,000/- during the financial year 2011-12 and ₹ 33,50,000/- during the financial year 2012-13 totalling to ₹ 1,15,64,000/- and remaining amount of ₹ 1,40,78,700/- is thus claimed to be out of his own funds. Firstly, we find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
