9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Inder Pal Singh for which the power of attorney has been placed on record. Thus looking into bank all facts present by the assessee, we are of the considered view that the Revenue may taken necessary action against Ravi Bansal if deem it fit in accordance with law but in the case of the assessee ultimately income i.e. to be chargeable to tax is only the brokerage income and the AO. Considering the rate of brokerage privilege in the market the excess income of the assessee considering that the finding of the fact that ground of the assessee are allowed. - DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM For the Appellant : Shri Sidharth Ranka (Adv.) Shri Sorabh Harsh (Adv.) For the Respondent : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT) ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee aggrieved from the order of the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Here in after referred as CIT(A)/NFAC ] for the assessment year 2013-14 dated 29.08.2023, which in turn arises from the order passed by the AO, passed under Section 144/147 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 19.12.2018. 2. The assessee has marched this appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below:- 4.2.4 On perusal of submission of the appellant, it is seen that the appellant has made cash deposits in his bank accounts. The documents filed in appellate proceedings are same as filed before the AO. The appellant has been claiming that the cash deposit of Rs. 27 Lakh has been made by his friend Ravi Bansal, but has however, till date failed to file any letter or confirmation from his friend Ravi Bansal admitting the same. Besides, no conclusive evidence in the form of any document has been filed by the appellant confirming the said claim. The appellant has been claiming that the amount paid to Sh. Vivek Oberoi and Sh. Inderpal of Rs. 23,52,800/- each is on behalf of Sh Ravi Bansal and the appellant has filed a Mukhtiyar Nama to support its claim. I have perused the Mukhtiyar Nama , but it is seen that the said document nowhere mentions the amount that has been transferred/agreed upon by the parties for the transaction. Thus the appellant's claim of the amount being transferred on behalf of Sh. Ravi Bansal is not proved. The appellant has been repeatedly asking for adjournment but has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the bank account of the assessee appellant. On perusal of the bank statement, it can be noted that there are two debit entries in favour of Shri Vivek Oberoi and Inder Pal on 02.01.2023. Copy of Bank Statement of the assessee appellant is enclosed herewith. 5. That Shri Ravi Bansal is regularly filing its Income-tax return and also filed the return of income during the year under consideration and his PAN is AJRPB3934G. 6. That during the course of assessment proceeding, the statement of the assessee appellant was recorded on oath u/s 131 of the Act on 14.12.2018 wherein the assessee appellant stated that the cash deposited in his bank account belongs to Shri Ravi Bansal, Shri Ravi Bansal has operated his bank account without his knowledge, the signatures on the cheque is of the assessee appellant himself and that Shri Ravi Bansal was appointed as Power of Attorney holder of Shri Vivek Oberoi, Shri Inder Pal Singh Shri Ashok Kumar dated 08.01.2012 in respect of agricultural land situated at Gram Badh, Ramjanipura Patwar, Shivdaspura, Tehsil Chaksu and in reference of which the said consideration was paid by Shri Ravi Bansal. (Copy of statement recorded u/s 131 dated 14.12.2018 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of the assessee but has not appreciated the fact that the RTGS received and cash deposited both gone to Vivek Oberoi and Inder Pal Singh in accordance with the copy of documents submitted at page 4 to 11 of the Paper books of the assessee and this fact has not been deposited by the Revenue. The ld. AR of the assessee based on these information controverted evidences submitted that utmost brokerage income of total transaction of 47,00,000/- can be considered as income of the assessee but not Rs. 27,00,000/- being the amount of cash deposited into the bank account. The ld. AR of the assessee in support of the various contentions so raised has relied upon the copy of statement recorded during the assessment proceedings and has recorded the question Nos. 2 and 4 and the same is also extracted herein below:-. Since these information has not been controverted making addition of Rs. 27,00,000/- as against the set off of facts available on record. 6. Per contra, the ld. DR submitted that the assessment has been completed under the provisions of section 144 of the Act and the assessee has remained non compliance to the various notices issued by the ld. Assessing Officer. The ld. AR of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id Mukhtiyar nama the amount transferred or agreed by between the parties have not been mentioned and merely on these correct reason the explanation of the assessee are rejected. The contention of the ld. CIT(A) has not correct when the assessee from the third party evidence proves that the money received in his bank account through RTGS and through deposit of cash has been given to Shir Vivik Oberoi and Shri Inder Pal Singh for which the power of attorney has been placed on record. Thus looking into bank all facts present by the assessee, we are of the considered view that the Revenue may taken necessary action against Ravi Bansal if deem it fit in accordance with law but in the case of the assessee ultimately income i.e. to be chargeable to tax is only the brokerage income and the Assessing Officer. Considering the rate of brokerage privilege in the market the excess income of the assessee considering that the finding of the fact that ground No. 2 and 2.1 of the assessee are allowed. 8. Ground No. 1, at the time hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee has stated at bar that the assessee does not press ground no. 1 and the same may be dismissed as not pressed. The ld. DR has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
