9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 467X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Shri Ganga Ram respectively. On the contrary, no document or corroborative evidence has been placed on record by the revenue authorities to prove that the investments made exceeded the investments shown in the books of account of the assessee. Therefore, merely stating that the assessee made investments exceeding the amount shown in the sale deed would not fasten any liability on the assessee under section 69B - We delete the addition - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 220/JP/2020 - - - Dated:- 9-2-2021 - SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM And SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM Assessee by : Shri Ram Babu Gupta (CA) Revenue by : Smt. Manisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT) ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. This appeal by the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. In the statements, both the persons i.e. Shri Narayan and Shri Ganga Ram admitted that they sold the land to the assessee for a consideration of ₹ 44,00,000/- and ₹ 34,60,000/- out of which a sum of ₹ 4,00,000/- and ₹ 2,50,000/- respectively received in cash as advance and the remaining amount was received through cheques. Whereas on the contrary, the assessee had shown the cost of the land at ₹ 39,12,000/- and ₹ 3,15,000/- respectively in the books of account excluding stamp duty and other expenses. Therefore, the AO added a sum of ₹ 6,50,000/- under section 69B of the IT Act by holding that the above investment of ₹ 6,50,000/- was made by the assessee out of books of account, the source ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt shown in the books of account of the assessee. In the present case, the revenue has failed to discharge its onus. In the statements recorded under section 131 of the IT Act, the sellers had not mentioned the name of the assessee but had told that the land was sold through Agent and cannot remember his name. Though the ld. D/R appearing on behalf of the revenue relied on the decision in the case of Bela Juneja vs.CIT, 20 taxmann.com 392 (Delhi), however, the paramateria contained in the said judgment is not relevant to the facts of the present case as in the said case documents were seized which revealed that the assessee had purchased the property at a higher sum than what was revealed in the sale deed. However, in the present case no d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
