9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 1240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of the sellers were recorded during the course of assessment proceedings. The year under appeal is a non-abated assessment year. Addition in such non-abated assessment years can be made only on the basis of incriminating material found during the course of search. Our this proposition is supported by the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla [ 2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia [ 2017 (5) TMI 1224 - DELHI HIGH COURT] Unaccounted receipts - As purchase consideration paid by the assessee is not below the guideline rate applicable for calculating stamp duty. Both the sellers namely Mr. Arvind Kumar and Mr. Laxmi Narayan have signed the registered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 006-07 filed on 19.06.2008 declaring income of ₹ 24,13,180/-. Notices u/s 143(2) 142(1) of the Act duly served upon the assessee. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings Ld. AO perused the seized material in the form of sale deeds of agricultural lands purchased by the assessee. As per these sale deeds assessee has purchased agricultural land from Shri Arvind Kumar and Shri Laxmi Narayan for consideration of ₹ 8,75,000/- each. Ld. AO issued notice u/s 131 of the Act to both the sellers. Statements were recorded wherein Mr. Arvind Kumar stated having received the sale consideration of ₹ 12,60,000/- and Mr. Laxmi Narayan stated to have received at ₹ 10,50,000/-. The Assessee s share in the alleged land was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w, the additions of ₹ 192500 ₹ 87500 are unlawful and unsustainable in law as in the search, no incriminating materials/ any positive/concrete evidence were found which suggested that the assessee had paid on money ₹ 192500 ₹ 87500 on purchase of land and, therefore, the said two additions be kindly deleted. (4) That on the facts in the circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned assessment year is non-abated assessment year and, therefore, without any incriminating materials, the addition of ₹ 192500 ₹ 87500 is unlawful and unjustified and, therefore, be deleted. (5) That on the facts in the circumstances of the case and in law, the levy of interest uls. 234A,234B 234C are un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Court in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla 280 ITR 570 and in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia 395 ITR 526. We have also followed this ratio in the case of Satish Neema IT(SS)A No.149/Ind/2016 dated 07.02.2020. Ld. DR failed to bring any other binding precedence in its favour. We, therefore, respectfully following the above referred decisions allow the legal ground raised by the assessee and delete the impugned addition. 11. As regards ground no. 1 to 3 raised on merits challenging the addition of ₹ 2,80,000/-, we find that the purchase consideration paid by the assessee is not below the guideline rate applicable for calculating stamp duty. Both the sellers namely Mr. Arvind Kumar and Mr. Laxmi Narayan have signed the regi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
