Tribunal overturns income addition, citing genuine transactions & lack of evidence; CIT(A) criticized.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the addition of Rs. 28,89,000 to the appellant's income, concluding that the transactions were genuine and supported by credible evidence. The Tribunal found the AO's addition under Section 69C was unsustainable as the funds were traceable to legitimate sources and well-documented. The CIT(A) was criticized for not properly considering the appellant's evidence. The order was pronounced on 27/11/2017.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 28,89,000 to the income of the appellant.
2. Dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) and upholding the addition.
3. Genuineness of transactions and documentary evidence provided by the appellant.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of Rs. 28,89,000 to the Income of the Appellant:

The appellant contested the addition of Rs. 28,89,000 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which includes:
- Rs. 20,89,000 received from the transfer of booking rights in property No. 618-A, Spaze Towers, Sohna Road, Gurgaon.
- Rs. 5,00,000 received from the sale of a plot at Nangloi, New Delhi.
- Rs. 3,00,000 received from the sale of old furniture.

The appellant argued that the addition was unfounded and unwarranted, providing detailed explanations and documentary evidence for each transaction.

2. Dismissal of Appeal by CIT(A) and Upholding the Addition:

The CIT(A) dismissed the appellant's appeal and upheld the addition, citing several reasons:
- The appellant failed to provide documents proving the genuineness of the transactions.
- Bank statements and photo identification of involved persons were not submitted.
- The appellant did not establish the genuineness, identity, and creditworthiness of the persons involved in the transactions.
- The explanation provided by the appellant regarding the source of funds was deemed unsatisfactory.

3. Genuineness of Transactions and Documentary Evidence Provided by the Appellant:

a. Transfer of Booking Rights in Property No. 618-A:
The appellant provided evidence that Rs. 20,89,000 was received from M/s Sanjiv Bindra HUF for transferring booking rights in property No. 618-A, Spaze Towers, Sohna Road, Gurgaon. The transaction was supported by:
- An agreement to sell and purchase.
- Confirmation from the vendee.
- Bank statements showing the receipt of Rs. 20,89,000 on 01.03.2011.

b. Sale of Plot at Nangloi, New Delhi:
The appellant explained that Rs. 5,00,000 was received from the sale of an agricultural plot at Nangloi, New Delhi, through account payee cheques. The transaction was supported by:
- General Power of Attorney.
- Agreement to sell and purchase.
- Affidavit and possession letter.
- Bank statements showing the receipt of Rs. 5,00,000 on 04.01.2011.

c. Sale of Old Furniture:
The appellant received Rs. 3,00,000 from Mrs. Sashi Aggarwal for the sale of old furniture. This transaction was supported by:
- Confirmation from Mrs. Sashi Aggarwal.
- Receipt of the cheque.
- Bank statements showing the receipt of Rs. 3,00,000 on 08.01.2011.

Tribunal's Findings:
The Tribunal found that:
- The appellant had satisfactorily explained the source of the Rs. 28,89,000 and provided sufficient documentary evidence.
- The AO's addition under Section 69C was not sustainable as the transactions were well-documented and the funds were traceable to legitimate sources.
- The CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition without properly considering the evidence provided by the appellant.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the addition of Rs. 28,89,000 to the appellant's income, and concluded that the transactions were genuine and supported by credible evidence. The order was pronounced on 27/11/2017.

---