TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (2) TMI 176
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 21/Chandi/2004, relating to the assessment year 1993-94. 2. The appeal was admitted for determination of the following substantial questions of law : "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs.3,25,000 by admitting the evidence, i.e., the agree-ment on plain paper by ignoring the principle of human probabilities which was apparent from contradictory statements of the alleged creditor ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs.1 lakh which represented repayment out of undis-closed sources ?" ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... entry showing liability towards Shri Ajit Singh and another sum of Rs.1 lakh on the ground that the assessee had made payment to Sh. Megh Chand Sharma which was not entered in the books of account. The assessee, however, succeeded in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (in short "the CIT(A)"). The appellate authority, vide order dated October 29, 2003, deleted the addition, holding that the amount of Rs. 3,25,000 was a trading advance against the intended sale of plot and it was not the assessee's own money. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) also deleted the addi-tion of Rs.1 lakh made on account of payment to Megh Chand Sharma. In further appeal, at the instance of the Revenue, the order of the Commis-sioner of I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The purchaser categori-cally stated in his statement that he was basically an agriculturist and had three sons who were illiterate. He admitted that out of savings from his agricultural income, he was purchasing agricultural land only. However, he stated that an advance of Rs.3.25 lakhs was given to the assessee to purchase the plot for Rs. 6.50 lakhs and out of advance, a sum of Rs.75,000 was received back by him. He also admitted that the deal was not materialized. In the instant case, the amount of Rs. 75,000 was received by the purchaser in the month of July, 1994, i.e., in the subsequent year, therefore, the amount shown in the balance-sheet was Rs.3.25 lakhs and the amount of Rs. 2.50 lakhs was payable by the assessee in the financia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Tribunal in paragraph 22 of the order read thus : "22. We have given our careful thought to the rival contentions. In the present case, it seems that the Assessing Officer made the addition only on the basis that the cheque received by the assessee from Shri Megh Chand Sharma had not been reflected as a liability in the balance-sheet. But he ignored this explanation of the assessee that the cheque was received in lieu of cash of Rs.1 lakh given to Shri Megh Chand Sharma. The contents of the confirmation had not been rebutted by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer had also not rebutted this explanation of the assessee that the amount of Rs.1 lakh was given to Shri Megh Chand Sharma in cash out of advance received from ....