TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 261
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. A.O. in making addition of Rs.53,81,355/- (Rs. 9,50,000/- in ITA No.1843/Del/2011) on account of cash deposit out of undisclosed sources of income u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in not quashing the impugned assessment order passed by the Ld. A.O. and in not deleting the impugned addition made by Ld. A.O. and the assessment order is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds and more so as the same has been passed by recording incorrect facts and finding and without giving adequate opportunity of hearing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee had, however, not filed any documentary evidence in this regard; that the assessee had also failed to prove his claim that the amount had been withdrawn for initial payments to land owners Shri Satbir Singh, with whom the assessee was negotiating to purchase the land; that no evidence had been produced with regard to the assertion that agreement to sell were prepared in respect of the deal with the intending sellers; that even no evidence had been furnished to support the claim that the assessee had, at a later stage, come to know that the land intended to be purchased stood already identified by HUDA for the purpose of house complex for M/s Omaxe Limited, nor was any evidence brought to support the claim that the deal did not mate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 7. We have considered the rival contentions. In 'Shri Manan Jain vs. ITO, Ward 19 (2), New Delhi' vide order dated 13.04.2012, passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.1845/Del/2011, under circumstances similar to those present herein, the Tribunal has remitted the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer, observing as follows:- "6. We have heard both the sides in detail. The assessee has claimed that there was planning to purchase the land jointly with his father Shri Subhash Chand Jain for group housing complex at G.T. Road, Sonepat, Haryana. The land was stated to be situated in the Village Kamaas Pur, Distt. Sonepat, Haryana. Assessee had not filed any documentary evidence in this regard. Assessee's claim that the amount was withdraw....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of purchase of property. Thus, the claim of assessee that cash withdrawal was not utilized for other purposes have remained unproved. Primary onus is on assessee to substantiate the claim of failure of land deals due to which cash remained unutilized. Assessee had not discharged onus by filing any evidence either documentary or oral in this regard. The assessee's reliance on the two decisions of ITAT in the cases of ACIT vs. Baldev Raj Charla & Ors. and M/s. Moongipa Investment Ltd. vs. ITO, cited supra, are of no help as the facts in those cases are totally different from the facts of assessee's case. Since assessee has also prayed in ground of appeal that order had been passed without giving adequate opportunity to the assessee. Theref....