TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 342
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s presented at the instance of assessee in appeal of the Revenue, i.e., ITA No. 219/Ahd/2012 in Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee in her appeal read as under:- In the circumstances and facts of the case and on the legal and other grounds, the CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- in the following matter: 1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in making income addition u/s - 68 of the Act in respect of Rs. 20 lacks loans received through banking channels from Jayambe Traders and Smt. Rekha N. Patel. The parties are assessed to income-tax, having PAN and also confirming the fact of granting loan. More so, when the A.O. has made income addition without inviting objections from the appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respondent deny to have made the alleged investment when the actual consideration for purchase of land property is made by two others to the effect of Rs. 1,32,97,025/- 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit even though the depositors are assessed to tax and have confirmed the deposits. Reliance is placed on Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Roshni Builders. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was found that the assessee has purchased an immovable property, i.e. land, on a total consideration of Rs. 1,32,94,025/-. The assessee was asked to furnish the source of the same alongwith registered deed of the property. The asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed before the lower authorities alongwith a Memorandum of Understanding. On perusal of bank statement of Shri Arvind L. Patel and Shri Vinod Solanki, it was noticed that both the persons had deposited Rs. 65,00,000/- and Rs. 58,94,325/- on the same day i.e., on 03.10.2007 in cash and made payorders. The Assessing Officer , after rejecting the contentions of the assessee, treated the amount in question as unexplained and added the same to the income of the assessee. 3.2 Matter was carried before the First Appellate Authority, wherein various contentions were raised on behalf of the assessee and having considered the same, the CIT(A) deleted the addition in question, which has been opposed on behalf of the Revenue, inter alia, submitting t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this regard, was that since it was nowhere claimed by the assessee that the investment had been made by her, addition u/s. 69 of the Act could not be made. The investment has been made under the arrangement of an MoU and the other persons have a beneficial interest in the property. In this regard, we find that the assessee has made investment of Rs. 6,50,000/- only in the property and the other two persons namely; Shri Arvindbhai Patel and Shri Vinodbhai Solanki has made the investment of Rs. 65,00,000/- and Rs. 58,94,325/- respectively. The investment has been made under the arrangement of an MoU and same was accepted by the other two persons. It is not in dispute that the pay-orders have been purchased from their bank accounts and have b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see was asked to furnish the evidence for the same and the assessee furnished a confirmation letter showing PAN from both the parties. The Assessing Officer made addition of this amount u/s 68 of the Act on the ground that, apart from confirmation letter, the assessee did not furnish any further evidence by which the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction could be proved. 4.2 Matter was carried before the First Appellate Authority, wherein various contentions were raised on behalf of the assessee and having considered the same, the CIT(A) dismissed this ground of the assessee. The aforesaid order of the CIT(A) has been opposed on behalf of the assessee, inter alia, submitting that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition o....