9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 489X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t he had taken the said amount from his employer Sh. Rahul Mehra. Sh. Ravi Gulati one of the accused in the F.I.R.registered with P.S. Manimajara, which prima facie shows his involvement in the said fraudulent deal. Hence, the documents on record corroborate the contention of the assessee. The AO has not examined the in-charge of the concerned police station to verify the version of the assessee. Similarly, the AO has not examined Sh. Rahul Mehra to ascertain as to whether he had paid money to Sh. Ravi Gulati. As per the settled law AO cannot make addition on the basis of surmises and conjunctures. The AO could have placed on record some important facts by examining the concerned persons to falsify the contention of the assessee. Under t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the addition of ₹ 15,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer treating the cash deposit to assessees own income earned from undisclosed sources in utter disregard of the explanations rendered which is arbitrary and unjustified. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has simply brushed aside the evidence placed on record showing that the cash deposited in the bank account was given by Sh. Ravi Gulati who had admitted the same before the Assessing Officer and as such the order passed is arbitrary and unjustified. 3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has without appreciating the facts as placed before him in the right perspe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) has rightly upheld the assessment order and sustained the addition. 7. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the material on records. The contention of the assessee is that in the year 2011, he along with Sh. Rattan Lal, entered into an agreement to purchase a House in sector 20A Chandigarh from Sh. Parminder Pal Walia for a total consideration of ₹ 2.34 Crore. The assessee paid ₹ 70,00,000/- in advance. Later on, the assessee came to know that Sh. Parminder Pal Walia had no clear title to sell the said house. The assessee accordingly asked S. Parminder Pal Walia to cancel the deal and to return the advance payment made to him. Since the Mr. Walia did not retur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s employer Sh. Rahul Mehra. Sh. Ravi Gulati one of the accused in the F.I.R. No. 0382 dated 05.07.2013 registered with P.S. Manimajara, which prima facie shows his involvement in the said fraudulent deal. Hence, the documents on record corroborate the contention of the assessee. The AO has not examined the in-charge of the concerned police station to verify the version of the assessee. Similarly, the AO has not examined Sh. Rahul Mehra to ascertain as to whether he had paid money to Sh. Ravi Gulati. 9. As per the settled law AO cannot make addition on the basis of surmises and conjunctures. The AO could have placed on record some important facts by examining the concerned persons to falsify the contention of the assessee. Under these cir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
