TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 653
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unt of cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee without appreciating the fact that agreement to sell has been produced before the assessment and appellate proceedings and without report of assessing officer in remand proceedings. Further the learned CIT(A)has failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant has refunded/ repaid 50% of total advance against sale of H.No. 799-A, Sector 2, Panchkula to buyer of the property. 3. The learned CIT (A) has wrongly invoked the provision of Section 69-A of Income Tax Act, whereas the assessing officer has made the addition u/s 68 of Income Tax Act". 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 31,00,000/- in her bank account with Axis Bank. When the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the payments spread over a period of six month. No documentary evidence with regard to these repayments has been furnished. It is difficult to believe that any person repays any amount to a third person, that to after some conflict/ dispute and that no receipts or documentary proof is maintained showing the said transaction/repayment. The assessee has failed to substantiate her claim with regard to entering into an agreement to sell as discussed above and has therefore failed to explain the source of cash deposits amounting to Rs. 31,00,000/-(Rs. 13,00,00 + Rs. 18,00,000) found to be made in her saving bank account. The sum of Rs. 31,00,000/- is therefore treated as unexplained cash credits and addition is accordingly made as undi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Counsel that the amount has been given back to Sh. Rajesh Kumar Raghav after withdrawing the same from the bank account does not hold water, since the amount might have been spent for any other purpose. The appellant has produced receipts from Sh. Rajesh Kumar Raghav regarding amounts received on cancellation of the agreement, but the same cannot be relied upon, since the identity of Sh. Rajesh Kumar Raghav is not proved. 5.1 In view of the above discussion, it is held that the Assessing Officer has rightly treated the amount of Rs. 31,00,000/- deposited in the bank account as unexplained. The Assessing Officer has made the addition u/s 68 of the Act, but since the identity of Sh. Rajesh Kumar Raghav is not proved, the amount is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence was agreed to be sold by assessee to Shri Rajesh Kumar Raghav and advance of Rs. 31 lacs have been received. It is also mentioned in the agreement that Shri Sandeep Uppal, Property Consultant, got the bargain completed and will be paid 1% as the commission. Shri Sandeep Uppal, property dealer has signed the said agreement to sell as witness. The assessee further filed copy of the receipt of advance money against agreement received from Shri Rajesh Kumar Raghav and also filed copies of the receipts in respect of amount returned to the purchaser on cancellation of the deal. The ld. CIT(Appeals) was satisfied with the explanation of the assessee that assessee could not produce the purchaser, therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed t....