TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (6) TMI 709
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncellation of agreement the advance given is either forfeited in full or in part. 2(ii) While holding so, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the dates of refund mentioned in the agreement of cancellation were in the nature of accommodation entries coinciding with the dates of credits in the bank account of the assessee. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,50,000/- representing cash credit from one Shri Ratanchand Bohra on the basis of no comments by the AO when said issue was never the subject matter of the remand report. 4. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,41,803/- being unexplained investment in the purchase of the property without appreciating that the assessee did not adduce any evidence in support of the investment to that extant. 2. Rival contentions have been heard and records perused. In the course of scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer made addition on account of cash of Rs. 14.00 lacs deposited in the Bank account. 3. The Assessing Officer has also made addition of Rs. 9.50 lakhs representin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and the cancellation of the same and rebut the argument of the appellant that there was sufficient cash available with her on different dates for being utilized as per her needs including payment of advance for land and on return for making deposit in bank account. Though documentary evidences play an important part in law and the courts attach great value for documentary evidences but even such documents may not be reliable. The appellate tribunal being a fact finding body is not expected to wear blinkers and accept the documents at their face value, where they are not credible and not satisfying the test of human probabilities in the context of surrounding circumstances, such a view was taken by the Tribunal in Dy CIT v Smt. Phoolwani Devi [2009] 314 ITR (AT) 1 (Delhi). The Tribunal relied upon the ratio of test of human probabilities propounded in rulings of the Supreme Court in CIT v Durga Prasad More[ 1971] 82 ITR 540 and Sumati Dayal v CIT[1995] 214 ITR 80. 4.1.2 However, in spite of having sufficient time and scope for verification of the veracity of the documents produced by the appellant the AO has not availed the opportunity provided u/s 250(4) and has failed to bring....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and the impugned addition is hereby deleted subject, of course, to only one rider. In the ~ explanation of Rs.14,00,000/- as discussed earlier Rs.l0,00,000/-is explained as having been withdrawn vide ch. No. 9147 of the UCO bank. The remaining Rs. 4 lakh cash includes Rs. 2,00,000/received back in cash from Mayuri Heena on account of share application money. Since no company under the Companies Act, 1956 can refund any share application money in cash, the appellant's explanation is prima facie not satisfactory to the extent of Rs. 2,00,000/ - and the relief to be granted on this account to the appellant has to be reduced by Rs. 2,00,000/-. In the result, the addition of Rs. 21,50,000/- is deleted out of total addition of Rs. 23,50,000/ - and the ground no. 1 is partly allowed. " 5. The Assessing Officer has also made addition on account of amount invested in purchase of house property amounting to Rs. 9,41,803/-, which was deleted by CIT(A) after having the following observations : "4.2 Ground No. 2 is raised against addition of Rs. 9,41,803/- in house property. The Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation of the appellant and made a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plained the source of deposit in the Bank account. Contention of the assessee before the CIT(A) was that agreement was executed with Smt. Kamlabai Bane Singh and Shri Jeevan Singh for purchase of agricultural land and the assessee has paid Rs. 14 lakhs as advance. As the sale deal did not materialize, the agreement was cancelled with consent of both the parties on 10.5.2006 and it was decided that seller would return to the assessee the advance of Rs. 14 lakhs as under :- Rs. 9,00,000/- on 27.06.06; Rs. 5,00,000/- on 15-01-07 Rs.14,00,000/- 8. In the assessment order so framed, the Assessing Officer has specifically asked regarding source of cash deposit in the Bank account. However, the assessee did not furnish any explanation or source of deposit of cash. For the first time, before the CIT(A), the assessee has stated that she had entered into agreement for purchase of land against which she paid Rs. 14 lacs cash as advance and since agreement was cancelled, the amount of advance so given was received back by her and the same was deposited in the Bank account. As all these evidences with regard to purchase of land, cancellation of agreement etc. was produced first time....