9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 521X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich, the ACIT has filed an affidavit for condoning the delay, to which, the Ld.Counsel of the assessee didn't raise any objection. Consequently, the delay of '1' day in filing of the appeal stands condoned and the appeal filed by the Revenue is taken up for hearing on merits. 3. Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as under: 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous on facts of the case and in law. 2. The Ld.CIT(A} erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- towards unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act, without considering the facts of the case that the assessing officer has brought on record the ambiguity pertaining to the nature of the credit for AY: 2019-20. 3. The Ld.CiT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the bank account of Shri Ramajayam Rangasamy of M/s G Square Group [through online on 21.12.2018], and when asked by the search team to explain about this credit in his account, assessee stated it to be interest free loan from Shri Ramajayam Rangasamy; and, when Shri Ramajayam Rangasamy was confronted on 19.09.2019 with this explanation/transaction, he is noted to have stated it to be an advance for purchase of the property handled by the assessee, but in this regard, the AO noted that Shri Ramajayam Rangasamy didn't divulge the details of the property for which the purported advance of Rs. 2 Crs. was given to the assessee. Thus, according to the AO, there was per se contradiction in the statement given by the assessee as well as Shri Rama ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parties and perused the material available on record. The assessee is a realtor and runs two LLPs in the name and style of M/s. Stones & Acres Property Developers LLP as well as M/s. Stones & Acres Realty Consultants LLP. It is noted that the income derived from the LLPs are offered as commission income after facilitation of the real estate transactions. The assessee had filed his RoI for AY 2019-20 on 31.08.2018 u/s.139(1) of the Act disclosing total income at Rs. 7,55,940/-. Thereafter, search u/s.132 was carried out on 29.01.2019 against M/s. Lotus G-Square Group which included the residential business premises of the assessee. During the course of search, the search team noted from the contents of the bank statement of the assessee [in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugh online/bank transaction from Shri Ramajayam Rangasamy; and that it was an event before the search happening on 21.09.2019. And that the payer/Shri Ramajayam Rangasamy has asserted on the strength of the MoU dated 21.12.2018 that payment of Rs. 2 Crs was advance given to assessee for purchasing of land [scheduled land of assessee at Eruvakkam village]. And that only due to the ambiguity in the statement of the payee regarding the nature of transaction that it was loan, the AO has taken adverse view in respect of the receipt of Rs. 2 Crs in assessee's bank account; and in this regard noted that even if the nature of transaction is accepted to be loan or advance (for purchase of property), either way, it doesn't have an element of income a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isions of section 68. 5.2.9 To take the discussion further, this is not a case where the payer had ceased his right over the payment of Rs. 2 crores to the appellant for any default on his part. As long as there is no cessation, irrespective of the nature of receipt being loan or advance, the same cannot be treated as income of the appellant. Therefore, in the light of the above discussion, the AO is directed to delete the addition of Rs. 2 crores made u/s 68. 9. We do countenance the impugned action of the Ld CIT(A) and find that that assessee had received on 21.12.2018 Rs. 2 Crs through RTGS/online from the account of Shri Ramajayam Rangaswamy, and when asked during search on 29.01.2019, assessee had explained it to be interest-free lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Ramajayam Rangasamy. By presenting the aforesaid relevant evidences, and especially the MoU, the burden to prove the nature of Rs. 2 Crs in assessee's bank- account shifted to AO, who we note has not rebutted the same. Based only on suspicion, conjectures and surmises the AO couldn't have spurned it away. Even though, original MoU was placed before the AO, he failed to call for the stamp vendor [Mr.N.Jyothi Selvam] who sold the stamp paper on 05.12.2018 as well as any of the witnesses whose names have been cited as witnesses to the aforesaid MoU. The AO couldn't point out any material infirmity in the MoU i.e. as to the assertions made by the assessee that he was the owner of the scheduled property and that the buyer has part performed hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
