2020 (3) TMI 1034

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sessment year involved is 2009-10. Following substantial questions of law are claimed:- (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in upholding the order of the Ld. CIT(A), deleting the addition of Rs. 4,46,75,000/- made by the assessing officer for advance money received or determining income earned in this transaction with M/s Hash Builders Pvt. Ltd., particularly when assessee had failed to bring on record any agreement/contract essential to ascertain the genuineness of transaction or adduce evidence in support that no surplus was generated, since advance was made to potential sellers? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....had not produced the agreement with M/s Hash Builders Pvt. Ltd. authorizing him to purchase land for TATA Housing Development Company's project. She further argued that alleged advance received of Rs. 4,46,75,000/- was not utilized by the assessee for advance to the proposed sellers, rather it was utilized elsewhere and the appellate authorities failed to appreciate the said aspects while deleting the addition. [5] Learned senior counsel for the assessee contended that the advance received is not an income. She places reliance upon Section 2(24) of the Act. Further to buttress the contention states that Section 56(2)(ix) was only amended in the year 2014, it is by virtue of the said amendment that advance received was brought within ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....etails were not furnished. It is worth noting that huge transactions were made by the assessee in cash. Even evidence/information with regard to sale deed executed as G.P.A. was not complete in the sense that it was not substantiated that the seller had received the same amount as paid by M/s Hash Builders Pvt. Ltd. to the assessee. Without furnishing the relevant documents, the assessee claimed that no surplus was generated from the advance which was with the assessee to the tune of Rs. 4,46,75,000/-. [7] The assessing officer, from the information collected, made the following table to establish that the amount of advance received was being used by the assessee for the purpose other than procuring land for M/s Hash Builders Pvt. Ltd.:-....