TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 80
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deletion of addition of Rs. 3,50,00,000/- made on account of unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act has been challenged before us. 3. The appellant is engaged in the business of real estate development. On 31.12.2009 an agreement was entered into by and between one Shri Deepakkumar Vadilal Patel and M/s. Vadilal Maganlal & Co. with a company namely Tripada Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (TIPL) through its Director Keyur Babulal Modi for selling of two plots of land lying and situated at Survey Nos. 1712 & 1713 admeasuring about 6186 sq. mtrs. and 708 sq. mtrs. respectively at Bavla for a total consideration of Rs. 1,14,82,000/- whereupon the said Tripada Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Company paid a cash of Rs. 1 lakh to the sellers and fu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....97/- as per the sale deed dated 01.11.2010 and dated 25.10.2010 respectively for both the plots aggregating to Rs. 4,87,55,466/- out of which 3,50,00,000/- was paid to TIPL with the consent of the sellers for waiving their rights acquired by virtue of Banakhat dated 31.12.2009 as return on their investment and profit on the same. 5. During the assessment proceeding since the confirming party namely Tripada Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (TIPL) did not remain present in terms of the summons issued by the Ld. AO, the amount paid to the said company has been added to the total income of the assessee under Section 69 of the Act as unexplained investment. It is relevant to mention that the summons could not be served upon the said parties as their of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le before the Ld. AO as also submitted by the Ld. AR. It was further submitted that the seller made the statement categorically confirming that in no uncertain terms the appellant herein had paid 3,54,00,000/- to Tripada. In that view of the matter there was no iota of evidence to disprove the genuineness of the purchase of land by the appellant and the payments made towards the same. Though, the assessee could not produce the confirming party i.e. TIPL the assessee filed a declaration made by the director of the said company TIPL declared on 28.02.2014 along with the forwarding letter dated 19.03.2014 which clarifies the entire facts of the matters as already discussed above. Taking into consideration the entire fact of the matter the Ld. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cture Pvt. Ltd. confirming the amount of Rs. 3.50 crores received by them from the appellant firm alongwith their return of income and audited Balance Sheet for the year in question are in my view sufficient and adequate evidences to justify the genuineness of the payment. That apart, as admitted by the AO himself in the order that the sellers in their statement recorded during the course of assessment proceedings have categorically confirmed such payment made by the appellant to Tripada Infrastructure further substantiates the genuineness of the payment made. Thus, there appears to be no reason to doubt the genuineness of the payment in absence of even an iota of, contrary evidence brought on record. I also find that the source of payment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are not applicable as such since the primary condition for invoking the said section is that the investment made is not recorded in the books of account, which at the outset is not the case in case of the appellant The ratio of jurisdictional High Court's decision in the case of CIT Vs. M.B. Patel 221 Taxmann 143 (Guj.) is clearly applicable. Further, the appellant has offered the explanation regarding the source of investment, which in fact has not been doubted by the AO. On perusal of the assessment order, I find that there is no observation of the AO that the explanation offered by the assessee was not satisfactory. Thus, the argument of the Id. A.R. that the AO has merely doubted part of the consideration paid for purchase of lan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....scope of questioning the genuineness of the payment made by the appellant. The source of payment made by the appellant has neither been doubted by the Ld. AO. Therefore, under the circumstances the provisions of Section 69 of the Act are not applicable in the absence of primary condition for invoking the said section that the investment made is not recorded in the books of accounts. The ratio laid by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. M.B. Patel 221 taxmann 143(Guj.) is rightly applicable to the instant case; the investment made by the assessee were duly shown; the source of investment as made from the assessee's account has neither been doubted by the Ld. AO. The plea of the Ld. AO of not being able to verify the genuinen....