2012 (3) TMI 432

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Saravanan, JCIT ORDER PER GEORGE GEORGE K : This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-I, Bangalore, dated 28/2/2011. The relevant assessment year is 2006-07. 2. The solitary issue that arises for our consideration is whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 28,24,000/- made under the provisions of section 69C of the Act. 3. Brie....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ture of Rs. 28.24 lakhs has not been accounted in the books of accounts and brought the same to tax by invoking the provisions of section 69C of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee contested the addition ofRs.28.24 lakhs before the CIT(A). 5. The CIT(A) vide his order dated 28.2.2011 confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) at para 7 read....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to be sustained made simply on the basis of an averment in the sale deed. But I also find that the assessee is equally in fault by inviting such addition because, he has failed to provide a confirmation letter from the vendor that the entire expenditure of Rs. 28,24,000/- has been borne by her even on the face of Assessing Officer's proposal to add the same during the course of assessment proceedi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ly heard. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. As rightly pointed out by the CIT(A), normally in the case of property transaction, it is the purchaser who bears the stamp duty. In this case, the property has been purchased by three sale deeds. All the three sale deeds are dated 3rd March, 2006. Clause 5 of sale deed (page 31), which is identical for all th....