AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 126
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 50,64,575/- on account of purchase of immovable property. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Off icer of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of loan u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, al ter or amend any of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal ." 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: The assessee filed return of income for the A.Y. 2009-10 on 11.03.2010 disclosing total income of Rs. 5,32,170/-. The assessee disclosed income under the heads salary, business income, income from house propert....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ilized towards the purchase of the immovable property. The assessee failed to file confirmation, copy of bank statement and income tax return of the lender. Hence, the Assessing Officer treated the loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- as an unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 3.1 The ld. CIT(A) deleted the additions by observing as under: 4. "The above written submissions of the assessee have been carefully considered. I have also carefully perused the case laws relied upon, and gone through the assessment order and remand report. The first issue in appeal is of the addition of Rs. 50,64,575/- u/s 50C in respect of purchase of immov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es of ITO vs. Fitwell Logic Systems P. Ltd. (2010) 1 ITR (Trib) 286 and ITO vs. Shyam Kumar Ahuja in ITA No. 3115/Del/2007 dated 27.02.2009 wherein it was held that the section 50C relates only to the seller of the property and not to the buyer of the property. Reliance has been placed on a number of case laws including that of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC), to argue that in the absence of any evidence brought on record to show that the assessee had invested more than the purchase consideration disclosed, addition made for unexplained investment could not be sustained. It is seen that the facts of the appellant's case are squarely covered by the judgments of the jurisdictional High Court and ITAT. In the case of CIT, Delhi v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nactment itself. This contention is also found to be correct. Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) was on the statute only between the Finance Act of 2009 and 2010 and has been removed from the Income Tax Act with retrospective effect from the date of its insertion. Hence the Assessing Officer's reliance on section 56(2)(vii) cannot be upheld. 4.2 Even on facts, it is found that the assessee booked the property bearing No. 3, GH5, Ahinsa Khand II, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad from M/s Nirala Developers P. Ltd. on 25.05.2006 by payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- by cheque NO. 747453 from his bank account with HDFC Bank, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. The assessee has produced the booking letter dated 29.05.2006 issued by M/s Nirala Developers which shows that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Assessing Officer to obtain the bank statement, however, the copy of bank statement, return of income, and PAN card of Shri Khurshid Alam have been filed during the appellate proceedings. In the remand proceedings, the Assessing Officer has stated that deposits made in the bank account immediately prior to giving the loan to the assessee are suspicious, and has also stated that the return of income of Shri Alam has been produced for the period subsequent to the year under consideration In rejoinder, the assessee has furnished the copy of return of income filed by Shri Alam for A.Y 2009-10, with computation of income showing that Shri Khurshid Alam has sold an immovable property during the financial year 2008-09 for Rs. 42,50,000/-. It ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....towards unexplained investment u/s 69B of the Act. 5. The ld. AR relied upon the order of this Tribunal in case of DCIT vs. Rajiv Chaurasia in ITA 1729/D/2012, a copy of which has been placed on record, where identical issue arose. The Hon'ble Tribunal dealt with the issue as under: "Here is a case in which the assessee claimed to have purchased the property for a sum of Rs. 3.50 crore and the AO has made addition of Rs. 5,59,66,000/- lac simply on the basis of difference between the DVO's report and apparent sale consideration. No attempt has been made for verifying the price from the seller of the property. In other words, there is no positive material evidencing the making of actual investment by the assessee over and above Rs. 3.5....