9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 721X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g additions of Rs.42,84,150/- u/s. 69C as unexplained investment is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not considering fully and properly the explanations furnished and the evidence produced by the appellant. 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in upholding that the appellant had made payment of Rs. 64,52,150/- towards his 50% share in land at Charal, Sanand so that the balance Rs. 42,84,150/- remaining after considering actual payment of Rs. 21.68 lacs by the appellant was unexplained investment u/s.69C. 2.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grievously ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3,91,48,634/- from GIDC on 25.05.2011 in the joint account maintained by the co-owners, but the assessee alongwith his cousin brother Shri Pradip Gandabhai Parmar purchased a plot of land at a price of Rs. 1,21,68,000/- before the receipt of the said amount from GIDC. The entire purchase consideration was paid in cash except the payment of Rs. 21,68,000/- made by the cheque on 27.07.2011 by the assessee. The Assessing Officer observed that after recording the statement under Section 131 on 26.11.2014, the assessee had 50% share of the land for the statement recorded under Section 131 of the Act on 11.12.2014 that of co-owner Shri Pradipkumar Gandabhai Parmar he stated that he purchased land and the assessee as well as assessee's co-owner ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f stating that he admitted his 50% but it does not mean having paid only to the extent of his share. The parties mutually adjusted payments depending upon financial conditions. The assessee filed his affidavit. The burden under Section 69/69A lie upon Revenue to prove that the assessee had made the impugned payment which it has failed and drawn presumption and surmise only in view of confirmation of the co-owner and no contrary evidence. Therefore, the Ld. A.R. submitted that no such payment alleging unexplained investment was made by the assessee. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Bombay High Court CIT vs. Raman Kumar Suri (2013) (29 taxmann.com 231)(Bom). The Ld. A.R. further submitted that no contradiction is explained by the CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be that the assessee at that particular time paid only Rs. 21,68,000/- and the balance was paid by the co-owner Shri Pradeep Parmar. The co-owner i.e. Shri Pradeep Parmar also established the source of the said amount of Rs. 1 crore thereby stating that the same was borrowed from Shri Kanjibhai Fulabhai Koli and to that extent has given the details that GIDC has compensated Rs. 3,19,26,530/- to Shri Kanjibhai Filabhai Koli and from that fund the co-owner received a loan from the said party. This crucial aspect were not taken into account by the Assessing Officer as well as by the CIT(A) and ignored the evidences produced by the assessee. Thus, the addition made by the Assessing Officer does not sustain. Hence, appeal of the assessee is al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
