TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 1138
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order of the Tribunal was recalled vide order dated 4.11.2016 passed by the Tribunal in M.A. No. 58/Chd/2016. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was heard afresh on merits. 3. The assessee in this appeal has taken following grounds of appeal:- 1. Because the action for upholding the addition of Rs. 74,95,000/- is being challenged on facts and law while treating the same as income by invoking the provisions of section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. . 2. Because the order is under challenge for not having considered the additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rule is true & correct hence and additionally neither recording a finding on the said additional evidence. 4. A perusal of the above grounds ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Assessing Officer submitted his remand report and found bank statements to be genuine. But copy of Ikrarnama and cancellation deed were not considered as genuine as these were not registered documents. Further, assessee was asked to produce purchasers from whom advanced money against sale of land was claimed to had been received, but the assessee failed to produce them and nobody attended the office of the Assessing Officer in response to summons issued u/s 131 of l.T. Act. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee dismissed the appeal of the assessee observing as under:- "7. I have gone through the submissions made by the appellant. It is noticed that there are cash credits of Rs. 74,95,000/- in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... received this cash. These five co-buyers are found to be not filing any return of income. Their bank statements and confirmations have not been filed to prove the credit worthiness of these buyers. Further, nobody has attended before AO to support the claim of the assessee regarding these cash credits. Assessee has also failed to produce any receipt/proof of having repaid the amount of Rs. 75 lakhs to co- buyers on account of cancellation of ikrarnama. The assessee has relied of the judgement of ITAT, Delhi in the case of 1TO ward-25( 1), New Delhi vs Umrav Singh HUF. The facts of this case are different from the present case in the following ways. (i) No confirmations from the buyers were submitted. ii) No bayan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee has reiterated the submissions as were made before the lower authorities. He has further placed reliance on the paper book page 53 which is a copy of the Agreement to sell ('ikrarnama') dated 18.12.2010 vide which the assessee allegedly received Rs. 50 lacs as earnest money. The Ld. counsel has further placed reliance on the paper book page 42 which allegedly is cancellation deed dated 21.2.2011. The Ld. counsel has also placed reliance on the paper book page 43 which is a copy of the writing bearing signatures of certain persons titled as "Panchayati Rajinama.' The Ld. counsel has further placed reliance on the bank statement of Shri Manjit Singh to show that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 25 lacs in cash was deposited by the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....11 reveals that the said agreement was cancelled and that the purchasers had received back the entire amount which was paid by them as earnest money to the assessee and others. However, surprisingly, the said cancellation deed does not bear signatures of the alleged purchasers. A bare perusal of the same shows that the same is a fictitious document, whereupon, the signatures have been put on of certain persons which do not match at all with the signatures on the agreement to sell. Even in the alleged 'Pancayati Rajinama' there is no signature of the alleged / concerned purchasers. These documents appeared to have been prepared by the assessee for self-serving purposes. Since the aforesaid cancellation deed does not bear signatures of the an....