2019 (11) TMI 1176

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the assessee's case and opposed to the law as applicable to such facts. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,32,355/- towards 'unexplained money'. 2.1. The Ld. CIT (A) failed to apply the ratio of the decisions of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull 87 ITR 349 (SC); Kishan Chand Chellaram v. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) and CIT v. Shivakami Co. P. Ltd. 159 ITR 71 (SC). 2.2. The Ld. CIT (A) failed to note that as per sec. 102, 103 and 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the burden of proof was on the transferor. 2.3. The Ld. CIT (A) failed to consider the decisions in CIT V. Paramjit Singh v. ITO 323 ITR 588 (P&H) and ITAT, Jaipur Bench order in ITA No. 467/JP/201 1 in Sharad U. Mishra v. DCIT dt. 25....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ongwith the land of 1549 sq.ft. He has taken Rs. 26.75 lakhs as his share and had given Rs. 1.75 lakhs each to his wife and his two sons so that they do not create any claim in future. The seller disclosed his PAN as AABPH8775L with assessment jurisdiction Ward No.111(4), Madurai. The seller stated that there was no agreement for sale and the assessee, Shri R. D. Kasiviswanathan paid a token sum of Rs. 101/- and the entire sale consideration of Rs. 32,00,000/- was received in cash on the date of registration of the property on 19.12.2012 from the purchasers. However, the property was registered only for Rs. 23,30,000/-. To corroborate the receipt of Rs. 32,00,000/- in cash, the seller submitted the copy of his wife bank account where Rs. 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mmed Nazir Hussain. The Assessing Officer allowed the cross examination on 21.11.2016. The assessee requested the seller regarding any other proof which he had to substantiate that he had paid Rs. 32 lakhs to him towards purchase of the said property. To which, the seller replied that no sale agreement was made between them. The assessee had paid a token advance of Rs. 101/- initially and the entire amount of Rs. 32 lakhs was paid in cash on the date of sale deed on 19.12.2012. He also submitted that even for registered value of Rs. 23,30,000/- there was no agreement. The seller also reiterated that the entire 32 lakhs that he had received was deposited in various bank accounts (Rs. 24 lakhs in his wife's bank account, Rs. 4 lakhs in his ow....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... submitted consent for the same vide his letter dated 11.03.2015." and further directed the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment proceedings after considering the arguments of the assessee." 3.3 Thereafter, the AO relying on various case laws completed the assessment after adding the impugned sum. Aggrieved against that order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) and the ld.CIT(A) after considering the assessment order, background facts of the case, the submissions made by the authorised representative and the case laws relied upon and upheld the assessment . Aggrieved against that order, the assessee filed this appeal. The ld.DR pleaded that the facts of the case remain undisputed, therefore, the decision rendered by the l....