9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 745X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustify the transactions. The manner in which CIT(A) has discussed the receipt and payment by assessee and lack of certainty to whom the payments were actually returned. The non corroboration of claim of working as land aggregator with specific transactions taken up or abandoned on behalf of said builder M/s Krrish Buildtech, only justifies the conclusion of CIT(A) and same cannot be said to be based on mere suspicion. Admittedly assessee had sought assessment u/s 44AD with a claim of not maintaining any day to day record or regular books of account. That all the more required evidence of the alleged business activity as a land aggregator. Thus the findings of learned CIT(A) deserve no interference. Grounds raised have thus no substance. The appeal of the assessee is dismissed. - Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice President And Shri Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. And Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. For the Department : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: The assessee has come in appeal against the order dated 26.03.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred as learned First Appellate Authority or i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e form of cash component of Rs. 39,23,357/- and a cheque of Rs. 50,00,000/- dated 29.09.2009. The same were deposited in the account of assessee as the grandmother was not holding any bank account. Further, before learned CIT(A) vide submissions dated 11.02.2019 confirmation from Krish Builders along copy of account of Krish Builders was filed. Learned CIT(A), however, doubted the identity of Krish Builders and further raised a query that as per the assessee the amount of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- received from Krish Builders was returned by way of two entries of Rs. 40,00,000/- and Rs. 80,50,000/- on 02.04.2010 and 09.04.2010 respectively. Learned CIT(A) observed that there was a cash deposit of Rs. 80,00,000/- on 07.04.2010 and of Rs. 50,00,000/- on 08.04.2010 i.e. before the payments immediately there were deposits. Learned CIT(A) also considered the fact that as per the bank statement, Rs. 40,00,000/- were transferred by way of demand draft on 02.04.2010 and Rs. 80,50,000/- were credited in the name of Harvinder Pal Singh and there was no mention of payment being made to Krish Builders. Learned CIT(A) had issued notice u/s 133(6) to M/s Brahma City Pvt. Ltd., which was formerly known a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as still valid and out of the amount of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- received by the appellant some part was repaid in the next year. The appellant further submitted that the matter is in dispute with M/s Krrish Buildtech. The relevant part of the writter submission dated 12.03.2019 have been reproduced above. 14. It is evident that this submission of the appellant is contradictory to the submission dated 11.02.2019 wherein in the appellant had filed a copy of account of M/s Krrish Buildtech as per which the entire amount of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- was repaid with interest of Rs. 50,000/- within a period of 15 days from the receipt of the said amount. There is no reference of any dispute pending in this case. The confirmation furnished by the appellant is undated and does not bear any PAN number any telephone number or any email address. This confirmation by itself does not prove either the identity of the creditor or the creditworthiness of the creditor. As pointed out above, the appellant was specifically asked to furnish the evidence in this regard but the appellant failed to furnish any satisfactory evidence. It is evident from the facts discussed above that in spite of a specific letter issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and circumstances of the case, assumption of jurisdiction in reopening the impugned assessment and passing the impugned order u / s 143(3) / 147 is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and more so when statutory condition as stipulated u / s 147 to 151 have not been complied with. 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, assumption of jurisdiction in reopening the assessment u / s 143(3) / 147 is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have quashed the impugned reassessment order passed by Ld. AO on the ground that no notice u/s 143(2) has been issued/served upon the assessee as per law. 4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 49,64,940/- (i.e. 25% of Rs. 1,98,59,760/-) made by Ld. AO on account of various cash/credit deposit in the bank account of assessee u/s 69 and has further erred in enhancing the said amount to the extent of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and without appreciating/considering ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
