TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 269
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned CIT (Appeals) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 32,33,700/- under section 68 of the Act made by the Assessing Officer without appreciating the fact that the appellant had discharged his onus envisaged under section 68 of the Act for receipt of advance against proposed sale of property. 3. That the Learned CIT (Appeals) has grossly erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Act ignoring the fact that the appellant could not be expected to prove the source of source. 4. That the Learned CIT (Appeals) has grossly erred in confirming the addition made under section 68 by the Assessing Officer ignoring the fact that the prospective buyer of land from whom advance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CO Industrial Area, Bhiwadi for Rs. 65,00,000/- out of which the assessee received partial amount in cash as follows:- S.No. DATED AMOUNT 1. 10.06.2010 16,00,000/- 2. 25.07.2010 16,00,000/- Total 32,00,000/- 4. The Assessing Officer, accordingly issued summons under section 131 on 03.03.2014 for compliance on 10.03.2014 requiring Sh. Suresh Chand Yadav to be present for his personal deposition, along with copy of his income tax returns for 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 assessment years and copy of bank statement with narrations etc which reflected the transaction with the assessee along with proof and documentary evidence of source of cash. In response to the said notice, Sh. Suresh Chand Yadav a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Assessing Officer. The fact that he was filing income tax returns which were directly procured by the Assessing Officer from the other AO i.e. the AO of Sh.Suresh Chand Yadav. This fact it was submitted further proved his identity. The amounts were stated to have been repaid back as per the submission recorded at page 3 para of the CIT(A) on the following dates:- S.No. Dated Amount (In Rs.) 1. 19.10.2010 7,00,000/- 2. 21.10.2010 5,00,000/- 3. 01.11.2010 10,00,000/- 4. 02.11.2010 10,00,000/- Total 32,00,000/- 6. A perusal of the submissions recorded in the impugned order and Paras 6 and 7 at page 3 of the impugned order, it is noticed that the assessee stated that on b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... did not go through the amounts were returned. 6.2. The Ld.Sr.DR relied upon the impugned order stating that the assessee's stand is vacillating. 7. On considering the above-mentioned overall factual matrix, it is seen that the return for the year under consideration as per the assessment order was filed on 28.03.2012 and notice under section 143(2) was issued on 08.08.2012. As per the submissions extracted at page 3 para 4 of the impugned order, the assessee has claimed that the advances received have been repaid back in the months of October and November 2010 as the transaction did not go through. On a consideration of the facts, I am of the view that relevant facts have not been thrashed out by the tax authorities. Evidently there ....