9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e enhancement made by the ld. CIT (A) at the threshold is deleted. Entire basis of addition is based on the seized paper wherein the amount mentioned as against the amount mentioned in the sale deed - Once the assessee had given the reasons as to why the amount received by the assessee was lower than the agreed sale price and not only that, when the AO has made his enquiry directly from the purchaser u/s 133 (6), who has also confirmed that it has purchased the property at the same price i.e. Rs.2,01,00,00/-, then we do not find any reason as to why the addition should be made on such seized document. Apart from that, agreement to sell mentions Rs.2,42,50,000/- and not Rs.2,72,00,000/-. Now, whether the property was agreed to be sold a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r law and without complying with the other mandatory condition as envisaged under the Act. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs.71,00,000/- on account of undisclosed long term capital gain and has further erred in enhancing the assessed income by Rs.2,73,00,000/- alleged to be unaccounted sales consideration of property at sainik farms and that too without bringing cogent adverse material on record and without appreciating the submissions of the assessee. 3. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT (A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs.71,00,000/- on accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of 1385 sq.yds. only and another same measurement of land of 1385 sq.yds did not belong to the assessee but to her sister, Mrs. Priya Suri. It was explained that assessee had initially entered into an agreement to sell of this property at Rs.2,42,50,000/- but ultimately this land was sold for Rs.2,01,00,000/- only. The reason for lowering the sale price was explained in detail before the AO and ld. CIT (A), which in sum and substance due to unfortunate death of a child in this area of land. However, the AO on the basis of Annexure A-1 (P-77) assumed the sale of this property at Rs.2,72,00,000/- on the ground that this much amount is mentioned in this document and based on this document alone, he held that property must have been sold at R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been stated at Rs. 2,72,50,000/-. Further Winsom had also paid Rs.12,50,000/- in cash another Rs.12.5 lakh in cheque. There is no mention of this cash in the final sale deed though the same cheque issued by Winsorn has been mentioned in the final deed which ultimately has been purchased in the name of a group concern of Shiv Vani. The cheque amount and cheque details mentioned in the said note very much tally with the figures mentioned not only in the final agreement but also in the first agreement dated 08.01.2006. 4.3.24 Mr. Brij Mohan Goel, the author of the note, is none other than the person who has signatory on behalf of Condor Technic Sales Pvt. Ltd. and his name also appears in the agreement dated 08.01.2006 which has been s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has wrongly presumed the sale of this property at Rs.2,72,00,000/- based on Annexure A-1 (P-77). Insofar as the basis for addition of Rs.2,72,00,000/-, the same has no consequence because it was not found from the possession of the assessee nor it indicates that assessee might have agreed to sale this property for this amount. The agreement to sell categorically provided that the property was sold at Rs.2,01,00,000/-. 6. Another important fact he has submitted that, during the assessment proceedings, the AO issued notice u/s 133 (6) to M/s. Condor Technic Sales Pvt. Ltd., the purchaser of the property and the reply of which has been reproduced in the assessment order in which the purchaser has also admitted that the property was purchas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was owned by two sisters and both have received half the share and hence it cannot be clubbed in hands of assessee. Even this not the case of the Assessing Officer nor there is anything in record. Therefore, the enhancement made by the ld. CIT (A) at the threshold is deleted. 9. Now, coming to the addition made by the AO of Rs.71,00,000/-, we find that the entire basis of addition is based on the seized paper (supra) wherein the amount mentioned was Rs.2,72,00,000/- as against the amount mentioned in the sale deed at Rs.2,01,00,000/-. Once the assessee had given the reasons as to why the amount received by the assessee was lower than the agreed sale price and not only that, when the AO has made his enquiry directly from the purchaser u/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
