9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 1044X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion is, therefore, upheld and the grounds of appeal of the Revenue are dismissed. - ITA No.231/SRT/2022 - - - Dated:- 21-3-2023 - Shri Pawan Singh, JM And Dr. A. L. Saini, AM For the Assessee : Shri Kiran K. Shah, CA For the Revenue : Shri Vinod Kumar, Senior-DR ORDER PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Captioned appeal filed by the Revenue, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14, is directed against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-4, Surat [Ld. CIT(A) for short] dated 09.05.2022 which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the Act ] dated 27.03.2022. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order the Ld. CIT(A)-4 Surat may be set aside and that of the AO may be restored to the above extent. [v] The assessee craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground(s) of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal. 3. The facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are stated in brief. The assessee before us is an individual and filed return of income for the assessment year under consideration on 11.11.2013 declaring total income of Rs.6,09,240/-. Subsequently a search action was conducted at the residence of Shri Shankar Uttamchandani on 06.02.2020. During the search a digital data in the form of mobile of Shri Shankar Uttamchandani, desktop, laptops etc. were got imaged through computer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id Satakhat it is revealed that you have purchased the lands as mentioned in the table below in F.Y 2012-13 and for the purchase of the same you have taken unsecured loan of Rs.2,08,17,210/- from M/s Shree Kuberji Land Developers. Further it is also seen that you have sold the said land in the F.Y 2015-16, exactly after the completion of three years and returned the loan amount to Shree Kuberji Land Developers. Table-1 Sr.No. Block No. Hisa No. O.P. area insq.mt. F.P. area 15% in sq.mt. Sq.yd. 1 258/9 9 1240 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration. 5. In response to show cause notice, the assessee furnished reply on 05.01.2022, which is reproduced as under: The case has been reopened merely because loan received from Kuberji Land Developers is not verified for amount of Rs.2,08,17,210/-. It may be noted that the above said amount is taken as payment towards various of Survey No. 258 at Kumbharia while passing an order at the time of sale of the land. The then Office assumed that since the entire amount was paid by Kuberji Land developers, the property would be deemed to be purchased by them and accordingly, the addition on LTCG was made on protective basis. In short, the amount was not considered as unsecured loan and therefore, reopening proceedings and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2013. The balance sheet of the assessee as on 31.03.2013, in which the said loan appears under the head Creditors for Others . In the balance sheet of M/s Shri Kuberji Developers as on 31.03.2013 and the said loan to the assessee also appears under the head Loans and Advances. Since the Balance-Sheet of the assessee is not audited, hence the claim of the assessee should not have been allowed by Ld. CIT(A). 10. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the assessee relied on the order passed by Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel argues that assessee had filed the copy of ledger account from his books of account as well as the contra account from the firm viz. Shri Kuberji Land Developers. The Ld. Counsel states that assessee had reconciled the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Guj), wherein it was held that if the amount was received by cheques and transactions were confirmed by the payer, no addition is justified u/s 68 of the Act. The Ld. Counsel further relies on the decision of Hon`ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ranchhodbhai Jivabhai Nakhava (2012) 208 taxmann.com 35 (Guj). 11. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. We note that solitary issue is relating to addition of Rs.2,08,17,210/- u/s 68 of the Act towards unsecured loan. According to the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
