TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 342
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 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 without giving reasonable opportunity of being he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 assessee furnished before the Assessing Officer the registered deed of the property which was registered in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at 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 that the CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,32,97,025/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment in purchase of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 been given to the revenue authorities. Therefore, the decision of the Assessing Officer holding that the investment belonged to the assessee was not justified and addition ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his 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 of Rs. 20 lakhs, though the amount of Rs. 20 lakhs was received through the banking channel from Jay Ambe Traders and Smt. Rekha N. Patel. The Authorized Representative for the a....