2018 (1) TMI 1574

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee without appreciating the facts of the case. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in admitting the additional evidence and allowing relief on that basis particularly when the assessee did not fulfill the conditions prescribed under Rule 46A and the assessee was provided sufficient opportunities as is apparent from order sheet enteries of assessment proceedings running into 17 pages showing that assessee or his representative attended proceedings on more than 24 occasions, besides the opportunities provided but not availed by the assessee. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 38,00,000/- made by the A.O on account of bogus liability particularly when the assessee could not bring on record any evidence to establish creditworthiness of the alleged creditor Sh Yashpal Aggarwal and/or to establish any business relations with the assessee. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed a written submission, relevant portion of which is reproduced below: "In this regard it is submitted that there was no outstanding amount of Rs. 78 Lacs as alleged by the Assessing Officer. Shri Darshan Singh had never stated before the A.O. that any advance has been given by him or his company, M/s Gulmohar Landcons Put Ltd. In fact, the Assessee had given advance to M/s Gulmohar Landcons Pvt Ltd. The Assessing Officer had taken the figure of Rs. 78 Lacs from one statement furnished in March 2011. A perusal of the said statement shows that the same was not a balance sheet of the Assessee. In fact the statement of assets and liabilities of the Assessee was furnished before the A.O. 16-12-2011 & there was no liability of Rs. 78 Lacs in the name of Darshan Singh. Since no liability of Rs. 78 Lacs existed in the balance sheet or the books of accounts of the Assessee, the disallowance was uncalled for and deserves to be deleted." 9. Ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee had himself furnished a balance sheet as on 31.03.2009 before the Assessing Officer in March, 2011 and in this balance sheet,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the appellate proceedings and requested that the same may be admitted under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rule, 1962, since the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence, which he was called upon to produce by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. Counsel has also submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that the entire transaction was through cheque and interest was not charged, as the said amount was received in normal course of business. Ld. CIT(A) held that since the assessee could not contact Sh. Yash Pal Aggarwal at the time when the assessment proceedings were on, he could not obtain confirmation from him and so he was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence, which he was called upon to produce by the Assessing Officer. Hence, the evidence in the form of confirmation from Sh. Yash Pal Aggarwal, filed by the assessee, was admitted by the Ld. CIT(A) and forwarded to the Assessing Officer for comments. 17. The Assessing Officer objected to the admission of additional evidence on the ground that the assessee was provided sufficient opportunity by the then Assessing Officer, but this objection is not tenable, since the assessee could not contact Sh.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... from one Sh. Joginder Singh to whom he had advanced Rs. 31,00,000/- in cash on an earlier occasion for some land deal, which did not materialise and Sh. Joginder Singh had refunded Rs. 40,00,000/-. The assessee had furnished photocopy as well as original copy of agreement to sell executed on 16.07.2008 with Sh. Joginder Singh. 25. As per this agreement to sell, the amount of Rs. 31,00,000/- was paid as advance in cash by the assessee to Sh. Joginder Singh and balance amount was to be paid by 30.09.2008. The Assessing Officer found that the said agreement was not executed on judicial stamp paper and so its authenticity was not established. In response to notice u/s 133(6), Sh. Joginder Singh had submitted before the Assessing Officer that this money was paid by the assessee for procuring a piece of land for the passage to the project of TATA Housing, which was later on shelved. It was also submitted that subsequently the agreement was cancelled and an amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- was refunded in cash. 26. The Assessing Officer has observed that the agreement was cancelled by the assessee and so as per terms of agreement, Rs. 31,00,000/- was to be forfeited by Sh. Joginder Singh,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... received back by the assessee and the sources have been fully explained and confirmed by the payee, supported by the agreements we decline to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 31. Ground No. 5 relates to the transaction between the M/s. Hash Builders Pvt. Ltd. and the assessee. 32. Brief facts of the issue are that HASH was appointed as agent of TATA Housing Development Company Ltd (hereinafter referred to as TATA1) and HASH, in turn, authorized the assessee to procure land for the project of TATA in village Kansal, to which the assessee was well known and conversant, since he was native of this village. The Assessing Officer noticed a large number of transactions in the bank account of the assessee and called for the ledger account of the assessee from HASH. HASH had informed the Assessing Officer that this amount was paid to the assessee as advance against land to be purchased by him for TATA. HASH had further confirmed that no sale deeds were executed in respect of the amounts advanced to the assessee. The assessee had also confirmed the nature of this transaction as advance against land. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain as to why no income ha....