2015 (9) TMI 1359

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bunal") in ITA No. 901/CHD/2012, for the assessment year 2009-10, claiming the following substantial questions of law:- i. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has erred in law in sustaining the addition of Rs. 43,00,000/- though received as advance for sale of property ignoring the vital fact that the deal could not be materialized and the said advance was returned during the year itself from the same bank account? ii. Whether the ITAT is justified while sustaining the addition of Rs. 43,00,000/- without appreciating that the assessee had discharged the initial onus and the AO was duty bound to discharge its onus to prove that the impugned bank deposits are actually the undisclosed income of the ass....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2) allowed the appeal. The CIT(A) held the finding of the Assessing Officer that the agreement to sell is not a reliable document was erroneous and without basis and accordingly deleted the addition of Rs. 43,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer. Being aggrieved, the revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal who vide order dated 7.11.2014 (Annexure A-3) set aside the order of the CIT (A) and restored that of the Assessing Officer. 6. The Tribunal noticed that the assessee was not the owner of the land in respect of which she had entered into agreement as the land belonged to her husband. No copy of any registered power of attorney of her husband in her favour was produced. Further, a perusal of para 13 of the Tribunal's order whe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....haser would agree to purchase the land from attorney holder until and unless such Attorney is duly registered or the persons owning the land becomes a confirming party in the Agreement to Sell. As observed above, Power of Attorney has not been filed before us and the perusal of the Agreement to Sell clearly shows that Shri I.D. Mehta who is husband of the assessment is not a confirming party in the Agreement to Sell. The copies of the affidavits filed by four different purchasers who were stated to be not related parties reads as under:- "HARYANA 21AA 12878 AFFIDAVIT I Ravi Parkash S/o Sh. Bhim Singh resident of village Khera, teshil Dabwali, Distt. Sirsa, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: 1. That I am permanent....