9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 792X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact, it appears from record that the agreements themselves were not produced disclosing as to what were the survey numbers of the land which were proposed to be sold to five different persons. Thus, there is no substance in the grounds raised and the same are decided against the assessee. - ITA No.1857/Del/2016 - - - Dated:- 16-8-2022 - Sh. Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant Member And Sh. Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Ms. Shilpi Dewan, Adv. For the Revenue : Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: The appeal has been filed by the Assessee against order dated 29.01.2016 in appeal no. 01/14-15(257/11-12) in assessment year 2009-10 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority in short Ld. F.A.A. ) in regard to the appeal before it arising out of assessment order dated 28.12.2011 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by ITO, Ward 26(1), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer AO ). 2. The facts in brief are the Assessee is an agriculturist and claims to BE having ancestral land at Kaithal District VPO at Baba Ladana i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of Rs. 60,00,000/- was made. 2.2 In Appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) called for a remand report. Ld CIT(A) observed; that the stand taken by AO was further substantiated when some of the creditors were found not traceable despite making spot inquiry by ITI of the AO in pursuance to the directions of CIT(A). The remaining creditors, whose statements were recorded by AO, also could not establish their creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction. During the statements, two creditors namely Shri Ram Bhagat and Shri Rajaram, who have allegedly advanced Rs. 10,00,000/- to appellant, have categorically refused that they have given any advance against any part of the land to appellant. They have even refused to recognize the appellant by stating that they do not know Shri Ajay Kumar Mehta, the appellant. In respect of their creditworthiness, Shri Ram Bhagat stated his annual income from agriculture during the F.Y. 2008-09 was around Rs. 50,000/-. Similarly, Shri Rajaram stated his annual income from agriculture during that year was around Rs. 50,000- Rs. 60,000/-. Both the persons refused to have issued any receipt, as claimed by appellant and filed during assessment proceedings as wel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d documents given by appellant were gone through and analyzed by AO and thereafter only conclusion was drawn by him regarding the cash creditors. During the remand proceedings also, again appellant was given sufficient opportunities by AO to substantiate his claim with details and documents and by producing the cash creditors before him. Thus, in both the proceedings, appellant was given sufficient opportunities to be heard by following the principles of natural justice. It appears that the appellant has raised this ground just for the sake of raising objections without the support of sufficient facts. The other objection raised by appellant that no opportunity to cross examine the creditors was provided to assessee of the creditors whose statements are recorded by AO, also has no substance. Onus was on the appellant to produce the creditors before AO and establish their identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction but during the whole of the assessment proceedings or remand proceedings, appellant failed to discharge his onus. The AO, by his own efforts, traced out some of the creditors and patwari and recorded their statements which substantiated the stand taken by hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posited with the proprietary firm A.K. Mehta and Co. Thus, the appellant himself has given the details of total money received as advance and its application towards cash deposits in bank account and deposits in A. K. Mehta and Co. Moreover, when the total amount of advances received by him is Rs. 60,00,000/- then why only Rs. 45,60,000/- should be treated as income as unexplained cash credit, cannot be understood. As per provisions of Section 68 of the Act, the sum credited in the books of account bf asscssee, if remains unexplained, has to be treated as income. In the case of appellant, the sum of Rs. 60,00,000/- has been credited in his books of account, which remained unexplained as per Section 68 of the Act, therefore, whole of amount has to be treated as unexplained and added to the income of assessee. In view of this discussion, grounds raised by appellant are dismissed. 3. The assessee has now raised following grounds; 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case confirming the order of the AO passed u/s 68 of the Act. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts of the case upholding the addition of Rs. 60,00,000/- made by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Receipt Remaining Amount Remaining amount payable before Who has given the Money 10/07/2008 20 Kanal Rs. 10,00,000/- Rs.5,00,000/- 23/06/2009 Jaipal Zile Ram Resident of V PO Baba Ladana who could not arrange the fund on the date. 05/06/2008 16 Kanal Rs. 10,00,000/- Rs.6,00,000/- 23/06/2009 Rameshwar Resident of Kaithal, Gali No. 2, Near Jindal Hospital 01/05/2008 20 Kanal Rs. 15,00,000/- Rs.5,00,000/- 19/05/2009 Suresh Zile Ram Resident of V PO Baba Ladana. 10/11/2008 31 Kanal 04 Marla Rs. 15,00,000/- Rs.5,00,000/- 06/07/2009 Balraj RamPal Resident of V PO Baba Ladana. 12/09/2008 20 Kanal Rs. 10,00,000/- Rs.5,00,000/- 25/05/2009 Ram Bhaga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
