9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee appeal allowed. - Dr. M. L. Meena, Accountant Member And Sh. Udayan Das Gupta, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv and Sh. Ashwani Juneja,, ITP. For the Respondent : Sh. Rajiv Wadhera, Sr. DR ORDER PER: UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, JM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 27.01.2017 raising the following grounds of appeals: GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and law in confirming the income assessed at Rs. 1,41,00,000/- by the AO vide order u/s 143(3) dated 12.03.2015. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and law in confirming the validity of proceedings initiated u/s 147/148 despite the fact that the AO failed to quantify the escaped income in the reasons recorded to initiate the proceedings. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and law in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,31,25,000/- made by the AO, as discussed on page 28 of the assessment order and para 4 and 6 on page 6 8 of the appellate order. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and law in confirming the addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- made by the AO, as discussed on page 28 of the assessment order and para 5 and 7 on page 7 8 of the appellate ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the agreement has been placed at Paper Book pages 1 2 and English translation is at page 2-A. That agreement was further renewed and copy of that has been placed at paper book pages 3 to 9 and English Translation is at pages 9A 9B. iv). In both the agreements, it has clearly been mentioned that it is Darshan Kumar in his HUF Capacity entered into an agreement under the name of Shri Sai Properties, which has also been mentioned in both the agreements. v). The main features of the agreement was that a deal was struck for purchase of land @ Rs. 70,30,000/- per acre and the total area of the land is 9.34 acres ( 450 Bigas) and at the time of entering into agreement, the payment of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- was made by two co- owners Sh. Darshan Kumar HUF and Mr. Harish Kumar and for the share of the assessee in respect of advance money paid, the addition was made in the hands of Darshan Kumar HUF to the tune of Rs. 43 lacs Rs. 72 lacs in the hands of Sh. Harish Kumar. This fact has not been disputed in the case of Sh. Darshan Kumar HUF and, though, the addition was made in the hands of HUF and the assessee has gone to Vivad Se Vishwas scheme of the department and the issue had been settled. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6-07. (e) In column No. 10(a) [PB- 19] area of land has been mentioned as 45 Bigha = 9.34 Acers which corresponds to the agreement as entered by the HUF and Harish Kumar which has been considered in the HUF. (ii) The AO has made the addition of Rs. 1,31,25,000/- being the share of the assessee [in individual status] of Rs. 2,62,50,000/- mentioned in column No. 9(b) of the valuation report for which the findings of the AO are on page 28 of the assessment order and the findings of the CIT(A) is in para 6 on page 8 of the appellate order in which the contentions of the assessee has been rejected and the appeal on this issue has been dismissed. (iii) That both the Ld. Assessing Officer CIT(A) has ignored the fact that the particulars of the property, name of the seller, Area of property for which the valuation report has been prepared tallies with the particulars as mentioned in the Agreement and its renewal which has been placed on page 1 to 9B of the paper book and for which the addition for advance paid has already been made in the hands of Sh. Darshan Kumar HUF and Harish Garg for AY 2006-07 2007-08 for which the details have been given on paragraph (v) on page 2 of the submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kumar Garg for Asstt. Year 2006-07, has also deleted the payment of advance money in respect of purchase of same property, the finding of the CIT(A) is contrary as given by him in appeal of the department for Asstt. Year 2006-07 in ITA No. 239/Asr/2016 and C.O. No. 26/Asr/2017. 7. The Assessing Officer, CIT(A) has failed to bring on record any corroborated evidence that the assessee had invested in any other property, beside the property of 9.34 acres purchased from Smt. Surjit Kaur and, thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the addition of Rs. 1,31,25,000/- as confirmed by the CIT(A) is ordered to be deleted. 8. With regard to Ground No.4, it is submitted that the CIT(A) has confirmed the addition of Rs. 7 lacs as per para 7 of the order and the Assessing Officer has discussed this issue at page 28 29 of his order. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee argued that this addition of Rs. 7 lacs was not maintainable and for which, in his brief synopsis, he has given the following submissions:- Submissions regarding addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- The documents relating to addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- being the of Rs. 14,00,000/- is on PB 64-70 of the paper book. (i) Copy of agreement with S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal. In view of the above stated facts, the appeal of the assessee may kindly be decided and the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) may kindly be deleted. 9. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee have brought to our notice by way of above submissions, read with different pages of Paper Book that no addition was required to be made and ld. Counsel have also been able to demonstrate that the name of the seller and description of the property tallies with the legal notice as per page 67 68 of the Paper Book. Even, a summary has been given in the Brief Synopsis, in which, it has been clarified that the deal was for Rs. 14 lacs per acre as stated in the agreement and on the basis of which, the addition has already been made of Rs. 20 lacs in the hands of Darshan Kumar HUF for Asstt. Year 2006-07, for which, the copy has been placed at pages 23 to 38 of the Paper Book and the relevant page is 37 and, thus, since that addition has already been considered and made in the hands of Darshan Kumar HUF, the addition of Rs. 7 lacs was not liable to be made on wrong interpretation of the facts of the case. As such the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 10. In the result, the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
