9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition made by the A.O. and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA Nos. 127 And 128/NAG/2021 - - - Dated:- 20-12-2021 - Shri Sandeep Gosain, JM And Shri O.P. Kant, AM For the Assessee : Shri Hitesh P Shah (CA) For the Revenue : Shri Pradeep Hedaoo (CIT-DR) ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. Both these appeals have been filed by the assessee against the common order of the ld. CIT(A)-3, Nagpur dated 28/07/2021 for the A.Y. 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively. 2. Both these appeals have common issue, therefore, for the sake of convenience and brevity, a common order is being passed. 3. Firstly, as a lead case, we take ITA No. 127/Nag/2021 for deciding the appeals. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. The Hon. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the assessment order passed U/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the I.T. Acdt is bad in law. 2. Hon. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of ₹ 8,00,000/- made by the ld. A.O. as unexplained expenditure on account of cash payment made towards land dealing without appreciating the facts and circumsta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7; 200=00 Haste Yogesh For Mohta 2800=00 cleared Total 37.80 18.00 Ch 19.80 cas 4.1 Alongwith this paper, Page No. 18- 24 containing vouchers of `Gorewada M-1' having signature of `Madhav' with Revenue Stamp was found. These Vouchers contain the dates and Amounts as follows : Page No. of seized document Date Amount 18 28/11/2013 ₹ 5,00,000/- 19 30/11/2013 ₹ 5,00,000/- 20 11/11/2013 ₹ 3,00,000/- 21 13/11/2013 ₹ 3,00,000/- 22 18/11/2013 ₹ 3 ,00,000/- 23 25/11/2013 ₹ 2,00,000/- 24 03/12/2013 ₹ 5,00,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cheque and Cash dated Amount 11/11/2013 Cheque - BOB 22-12-2013 1,50,000 18/11/2013 Cheque - BOB 27/12/2013 3,00,000 Total Cheque Payment (A) 4,50,000 25/11/2013 Cash 25/11/2013 2,00,000 28/11/2013 Cash 28/11/2013 2,00,000 03/12/2013 Cash 03/12/2013 1,00,000 Total Cash Payment (B) 5,00,000 Total (A+B) ' . I 9,50,000 Mrs. Madhu Kothari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adhav. 8.6 As regards the Cash payment, we are enclosing herewith the following details which could not be submitted during the course of assessment proceedings as the same were not available at that point of time, with a request that the same may please be considered as Additional Evidence and accepted on record: 1) Madhav Mohta's ledger Account in the books of Mr. Nilesh Kothari reflecting the amount of ₹ 9,50,000/- paid in Cash and Cheque. - Page 29. 2) Madhav Mohta's ledger Account in the books of Mrs. Madhu Kothari reflecting the amount of ₹ 16,61,000/- paid in Cash and Cheque. - Page 30. 3) Ledger Account of Cash In hand in the books of Mr. Nilesh Kothari showing the total cash in hand including gift received of ₹ 2,00,000/- and payment of ₹ 5,00,000/- for purchase of the property from that. - Pages 31 to 34. 4) Ledger Account of Cash In hand in the books of Mrs. Madhu Kothari showing the total cash in hand including gift received of ₹ 1,00,000/- and payment of ₹ 3,11,000/- for purchase of the property from that. - Page 35. 5) Return Acknowledgement, Computation of Income and Balancesheet of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition of ₹ 8.00 lacs was made in the present case by the A.O. and upheld by the ld. CIT(A) by holding that in fact the assessee had made more amount to the seller of the property as per page No. 17 of Anneuxre-B1 i.e. the seized document. However, on the other hand, the ld. AR has vehemently contended that the said page No. 17 of Annexure-B1 is a rough paper containing rough jotting. The said contention of the ld. AR was rejected by the ld. CIT(A). It is important to mention here that during the pendency of first appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee had moved an application for leading additional evidences under Rule 46A and the said application was allowed and the additional evidences were also admitted by the ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR has taken a specific ground that, although, during the year under consideration, the assessee and his wife agreed to jointly purchased a plot at ₹ 35.00 lacs from Mr. Madav Vallabhdas Mohta and in this regard, an agreement to sell between Mr. Madav Vallabhdas Mohta i.e. the seller and Mr. Nilesh Kothari and Mrs. Madhu Kothari i.e. the assessee as well as his wife, who was purchaser, has also been mentioned. In the said agreement, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned effect of all those circumstances is determinative of the question as to whether or not a particular fact is proved. In the case before us, except the said seized papers, no other corroborative evidence has been brought on record by the AO. Whereas the assessee has proved beyond doubt the fact that the said property is still in dispute. The seller also has denied of getting any further payment from the assessee before the AO. Hence we agree with the arguments of AR that no prudent businessman will give full money to the seller, if the property being purchased is in dispute. Considering the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the addition made by the A.O. and upheld by the ld. CIT(A) on the basis of seized document is without any basis or foundation more particularly when no specific facts by virtue of documents have been placed on record and have not rebutted by the Revenue, thus, in this eventuality, no addition was warranted. Accordingly, we direct to delete the addition made by the A.O. and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 9. In this result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed. 10. Now we take ITA No. 128/Nag/2021 for the A.Y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
