TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 976
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... any findings on the `fact and direct evidence` u/s 32 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 qua the existence of the payee to the capital account transactions u/s 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? II. Whether under the fact & circumstances of the case, pursuant to the Provisions of Section 2(14), 45(1) r.w Section 51, the advance money arising out of agreement to sell shall be deducted from the `cost of asset' and (or) the whole amount is `chargeable' to tax u/s 5 as `revenue receipt' ?" In the income of the assessee, as filed in his return, additions were made by the Assessing Officer to the tune of Rs. 28.50 lacs on account of unexplained deposits made by him in his bank accounts. On being questioned by the Assessing Officer, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ilas, the Assessing Officer issues notices to them under Section 131 of the Act. However, the summons were received back in the office with the remarks that at the given address of Shri Sanjay Kumar, no such person was found and that the father's name of Shri Harbilas was not correct. In spite of final opportunity granted to the assessee, he failed to produce the above said two persons. So far as the assessee's explanation with regard to the receipt of Rs. 5 lacs from one Shri Bhoop Narayan, in pursuance to the agreement to sell of the Shop was concerned, on summons having been issued, Shri Bhoop Narayan appeared but his explanation with regard to the sources of funds was found to be unsatisfactory. In view of the aforesaid facts,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m to explain the same. The matter was then carried by the assessee before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Division Bench, Chandigarh (for short - the Tribunal). The matter was considered and to the afore-referred concurrent findings arrived at by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner, the Tribunal also put its stamp of approval. It was found that the assessee had not satisfactorily explained the cash deposits made by him. At least two of the four persons, who had allegedly paid advances to him, were untraceable. The statements of the other two, who did appear before the Assessing Officer, were considered and disbelieved. The alleged agreement to sell with regard to the Plot, on the basis of which, the assessee allegedly had receiv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessing Officer in which he has explained to have only meager income and has three children. Therefore, he would not have any past savings to make any advance to the assessee. He was not maintaining any bank account. He has explained the source of giving Rs. 5 lacs to the assessee out of past savings of Rs. 1,50,000/- for which no evidence has been furnished. Considering his meager income and large number of family members and that he did not maintain any bank account, Shri Bhoop Narain failed to prove any past savings with him to advance any money to the assessee. He has further explained that Rs. 2,50,000/-was received by him from his father but he has failed to produce any evidence of taking any amount from his father and also failed to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts have been withdrawn from his bank to give any advance money to the assessee. He was not able to tell even the names of the persons with whom he has entered into agreement for sale of his house. He has not established that he has sold any house and he was having any source to give advance to the assessee. Original agreement was not produced. The agreement in this case was also not on judicial paper. Despite the agreement with Shri Subhash Kumar was cancelled but entire advance money was not refunded immediately to Shri Subhash Kumar. It is not explained as to what happened with regard to the amount refunded on cancellation of agreement to Shri Sanjay Kumar and Shri Harbilas. It is highly unbelievable that the persons who have given advanc....