2016 (7) TMI 761

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ders of the CIT (A) deleting the addition of Rs. 2.40 crore agreement that was claimed as expenditure, made by the Assessing Officer, being the amount of forfeited by the Seller for non-fulfillment of the purchase agreement ?" 3. The respondent-assessee is a dealer in immovable property. For the subject assessment year, the respondent had filed return of income declaring income of Rs. 1.49 crores. In its return, the respondent - assessee had claimed expenditure of Rs. 2.40 crore under the head compensation charges. On inquiry by the Assessing Officer, the respondent pointed out that he entered into an agreement to purchase property in Pune with one M/s. Emtech Solutions (P) Ltd. in terms of agreement of sale dated 12th January, 2009 for c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ther, the vendor had also agreed that it had received Rs. 2.40 crores from the respondent. In the above view, the CIT (A) allowed the expenditure of Rs. 2.40 crores as claimed by the respondent-assessee while allowing his appeal. 5. Being aggrieved, the revenue carried the issue in appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the order dated 21st February, 2012 of the CIT (A) while recording the fact that before the amount was forfeited, the vendors had served notice on the assessee dated 23rd February, 2009 in which it is clearly stated that cheques amounting to Rs. 1 crore issued by him had been dishonoured by the bank. It also has warned the respondent of dire consequences for dishonour of the cheque. Taking into account the aforesaid fa....