2021 (2) TMI 1087

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 3. Firstly we shall deal with the appeal in ITA No. 35/Chd/2020 wherein the only ground raised read as under: "1. The Ld. CIT(A) have erred in laws and on the facts of the case by confirming the additions made the Ld. A.O. amounting to Rs. 26,59,670/- to the total income of the assessee by applying the provisions of Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the assessee had made payments for purchase of property, whereas it was a family transfer and no consideration exchanged hands." 4. Facts of the case in brief are that the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') for the reasons that the assessee had failed to furnish the source of inv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ushil Kumar S/o. Sh. Mahipal and Smt. Reena Rani W/o. Sh. Satinder Singh s/o. Sh. Mahipal who happens to be wives of sons of Smt. Bala Devi, by way of sale deed No. 14096 dated 03.03.2011." 4.2. However the A.O. did not find merit in the submission of the assessee and made the addition of Rs. 26,59,670/- by observing as under: "The reply filed by the assessee has been considered but not accepted. In this case, from the perusal of sale deed No. 14096 dated 03.03.2011 it is found that the assessee, Smt. Usha Devi W/o. Sh. Pawan Kumar alongwith others has given total sale consideration of Rs. 77,32,000/- in cash at home to Sh. Chajju Singh, seller of the property and it is clearly mentioned in the sale deed that no amount of sale considerat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f both parties, viz. Sh. Chhaju (the maternal uncle of the appellant's spouse) and the assessee. These explanations are, at best, flimsy and the assessee cannot deny that the agreement was registered and cash changed hands, merely by stating that it was an arrangement where no transaction in immovable property took place. This explanation cannot suffice, in view of the tangible evidence on record which cannot be ignored. There is no cogent evidence bought by the assessee to prove that no sale took place. Hence, the addition has been rightly made and I confirm the same." 7. Now the assessee is in appeal. 8. Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted an application under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Rules 1963 for admission of the addition....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re to be taken from revenue authorities/Tehsil office and because of non-possibility of procurement of the same from Tehsil office, said evidence could not be submitted during the assessment proceedings or first appellate proceedings. 5. So, we hereby pray that these documents be allowed as additional evidence as per Rule 29 of ITAT Rules, 1963 for the proper adjudication of the issue and in the interest of justice and could not be obtained by the assessee earlier due to the circumstances beyond his controls, thus there being a reasonable cause for submitting this evidence before this Hon'ble Bench. 6. List of documents, being submitted as additional evidence, are enclosed herewith and the index for additional evidence is as under: ....