AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 1512
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e received advances from various parties on account of booking of developed plots. For verification of these advances summons u/s 133(6) were issued and the statements from the parties were recorded. Assessment was completed u/s 143(3) after making additions of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 43,12,250/- on account of advances from various parties and Rs. 6,03,850/-, Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 13,54,380/- on other heads. Income assessed at Rs. 66,71,820/-. 3. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A) and partly succeeded. 4. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising following grounds of appeal; 1. Because on facts and in circumstances of the case, Id.CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition by Id. Assessing Officer of amount received from Ramkumar Gangrade Rs. 4,OO,OOO/- as unexplained credit. 2. Because on facts and in circumstances of the case, Id.CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition by Id. Assessing Officer of amount received from Late Shri Vinod Thakkar Rs. 27,00,000/- as unexplained credit. 3. Because on facts and in circumstances of the case, Id.CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition by Id. Assessing Officer of amount received fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mar Gangrade Nil 4,00,000 3 Late Shri Vinod Thakkar Nil 27,00,000 4 Shri Arun Bhatt Nil 9,50,000 5 Shri Ravish Patel Nil 2,62,250 TOTAL 50,000 43,12,250 Ld. CIT(A) while granting the relief for the addition sustained of Rs. 50,000 received from Smt. Sushila Devi Sujansingh stated that - The advance received has included in the income for the year 2015-16 and if it is added in the impugned year it shall not be correct in the eyes of law. Hence the addition was deleted. [CIT(A) order para 8.1] 5. For the additions sustained in the case of parties mentioned at Sr. no. 2 to 5 in the above table, assessee submits that the advance received was brought to tax in the year for registration of property. This fact is evident from the financial statements, summarized as under - Party Name Plot No. Opening Balance During the year Closing Balance Registry Amount Registry Date Shri Ramkumar Gangrade 198 2,21,000 4,00,000 6,21,000 5,88,000 28.01.2015 (PB 18) Shri Pawan Thakkar 3 9,21,000 27,00,000 36,21,000 13,87,000 13.11.2014 (PB18) Shri Arun Bhatt (Dee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....balance amount was paid by him through the broker in installment of Rs. 3,00,000. In their affidavits, it is also mentioned that at the time of registration the plot was booked by Late Shri Vinod Thakkar which was eventually registered by him in the name of his son Shri Pawan Thakkar. [PB 64-66, 69-72] 13. ln the statement recorded under oath u/s 131 Shri Pawan Thakkar has stated that plot was purchased and the advance was given before the date of registration. Ld. AO has stated incorrect fact that, assessee has not submitted any document to establish that plot noA was sold to Late Shri Vinod Thakkar or Shri Pawan Thakkar or any amount was received for purchase of plot. Ld. CIT(A) also erred in ignoring the copy of receipts submitted and sustained the additions made. 16. ln the case of Shri Arun Bhatt, plot no. 262, 263 and 264 were booked by him. These plots were registered in the name of Shri Deepak Malviya (Plot no. 262) and Shri Dhananjay Jaiswal (Plot No. 263 and 264) who gave Rs. 2,50,000 and Rs. 1,00,000 respectively at the time of registration. He gave the advance for booking of the above mentioned plots out of his past savings, agriculture income of his f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... He admitted that he has done work of electrification for Mahadevi Nagar, Colony, Khandwa. The work was started but the agreement was entered into later on 25.03.2014. The payment was received by him in accordance to the agreement entered into. Expense stands explained and no addition is called for. [PB 394] b. Shri Firoz Khan: In his statement recorded under oath, in response to Q. No. 6 he stated that the entire amount was received by him from assessee and all the vouchers have been signed by him. He has also stated that he has received weekly labour charges of Rs. 12,000 to Rs. 20,000. Shri Firoz Khan made the payment to the labour arranged by him and hence the voucher was made in his name.[PB 391A Q. No.4 and PB 392 Q No.6] c. Shri Narendra Kumar Thakur: In his statement recorded under oath, in response to Q. No.5 he has stated that no amount was received by him in cash. [PB 393] 23. Reliance is placed on judicial precedents - a. Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Navinbhai N. Patel - [2014] 41 taxmann.com 424 - order pronounced on 30.04.2013 b. Hon'ble Delhi bench of ITAT in the case of Dr. Sunil Kumar Sharma - [2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by both the parties placed before a Government authority. The dispute arised only when the alleged cash creditors refused to have given advances during the year under appeal but nowhere they have questioned the genuineness of the transaction and the purchase of plots/immoveable property from the assessee. It is also not disputed that the sale consideration received by the assessee has been duly offered to tax in the year when sale deeds were registered and due taxes have been paid thereof. It is also evident from the record that the excess amount left with the assessee, if any was also refunded to the respective parties and the same is verifiable from going through para 13 of the registered sale deeds where the purchaser accepts to have received any excess amount received as advance and it has been duly admitted that the advanced amount have been received. So in nutshell there seems to be no loss to the revenue as regards to sale consideration received. Identity is already not disputed. Sale consideration received in cash as well as the cheque has also been accepted by the alleged cash creditors. However in our considered opinion and in the given circumstances of the case as well a....