9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 557X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugned order and even that letter was also not available to the AO who passed the assessment order on 28.01.2015 i.e. much before 28.11.2006 and by considering peculiar facts of this case, we deem it appropriate to set aside this case back to the file of the AO to be considered afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and by considering all the evidences furnished by the assessee. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No. 297/CHD/2017 - - - Dated:- 3-12-2020 - N. K. Saini , Vice President And Ravish Sood , Member ( J ) For the Appellant : Tej Mohan Singh , Advocate For the Respondents : Ashok Khanna , Addl. CIT ORDER N.K. Saini, Vice President 1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 07.12.2016 of CIT(A)-II, Chandigarh. The following grounds have been raised in this appeal: 1. The order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is bad, against facts and law. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case has erred in sustaining the addition of ₹ 14,00,000/-. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statement. 4.1. The AO observed that details of the bank accounts of the assessee revealed that the opening balance as on 19.04.2007 was 'nil' and an amount of ₹ 20 lacs was credited on 19.04.2007, therefore, the claim of the assessee that he had invested in the impugned property by raising a loan from Centurial Bank of Punjab was contrary to the facts on record as the said property had been transferred to the assessee through Registered Deed on 22.01.2007 i.e. three months before the amount credited to his account. The AO also observed that no explanation had been submitted by the assessee to explain the source of ₹ 32,59,960/- [₹ 30,66,000/- + ₹ 1,83,960/- (Stamp Duty) + ₹ 10,000/- (Registration Fee)] invested in the property. He made an addition of the said amount ₹ 32,59,960/- and assessed the income at ₹ 35,01,850/-. 5. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that land was purchased for ₹ 30,60,000/- and cash amounting to ₹ 14 lacs was paid on 31.12.2006 to the seller by withdrawing ₹ 13,45,000/- from the books of account of M/s. Naresh Kela Bhandar and ₹ 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rm is not correct. Further, the assessee has claimed that the sale deed was executed on 22.01.2007 and on his request the seller agreed to receive the balance payment of ₹ 16,66,000/- in the third week of April, 2007. He has further claimed that the above said amount was paid by him to the seller after withdrawing the same from his account No. 109901000243162 maintained with HDFC, SCO 46-47, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh is also not correct The perusal of bank statement reveals that the assessee has withdrawn a sum of ₹ 9,50,000/- on 19.04.2007 and ₹ 9,50,000/- on 20.04.2007 from his account. Thus, the claim of the assessee that balance amount of ₹ 16,66,666/- was paid by him to the said seller Sh. Om Parkash is also not correct and appears to be cooked up story from he part of the assessee.. On 19.04.2007 a sum of ₹ 9,50,000/- has only been withdrawn by the assessee. The assessee has failed to establish the source of purchase of land at the time of completion of assessment under selection 143(3)/147 and also by filing of additional evidence before your goodself. 7. The ld. CIT(A) forwarded the aforesaid remand report of the AO to the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as stated that the payment was actually made on 20.04.2007 by making the withdrawal of ₹ 9,50,000/- each on 19.04.2007 and 20.04.2007 from the HDFC Bank. It was submitted that the then Advocate of the assessee informed vide letter dated 28.11.2006 to the ld. CIT(A) that the mistake was inadvertent and the payment was made on 20.04.2007 which was inadvertently mentioned as 19.04.2007. It was also submitted that the ld. CIT(A) without rejecting the explanation given by the then counsel for the assessee namely Shri R.K. Chaudhary sustained the impugned addition. The ld. counsel for the assessee also furnished additional evidences in the form of affidavits each dated 09.10.2020 furnished by the assessee as well as the seller of the agricultural land. He requested to admit these affidavits as additional evidences as the contents of these affidavits go to the root of the matter and that in the said affidavits it has been clarified that the payment was made on 20.04.2007 to the seller and by mistake in the office of the Advocate, the date was typed as 19.04.2007. 10. In his rival submissions, the ld. Sr. DR strongly supported the orders passed by the authorities below and reitera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
