TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 100
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on assumption and presumption without bringing any material on record that such payment is made in the year under consideration. She has further erred in confirming the addition without considering the fact that due to family disputes of seller the transaction has not yet materialized and therefore, no such payment has been made. 1.1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition by holding that as per the sale agreement actual possession of the property has been given to the assessee and therefore, addition in the year under consideration is justified ignoring that the sale agreement is dt. 30.04.2008, assessee is not yet in the possession of property and there is no evidence that payment of Rs. 54.50 lacs has b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat due to the dispute between the family members, the seller could not execute the sale deed and therefore, the transaction was not materialized and the balance payment was not paid by the assessee till date. The assessee contended that in the absence of any record to show that the assessee has paid the balance payment the same cannot be treated as unaccounted expenditure or investment for the year under consideration. The ld. CIT(A) did not accept the contention of the assessee and confirmed the addition made by the AO while passing the impugned order. 4. Before the tribunal, the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer has accepted that the payment to the extent of Rs. 29,50,000/- apart from the cheque payment of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ltd. (2014) 107 DTR 201. * CIT Vs Khandelwal shringi & Co. (2017) 159 DTR 59. * ACIT Vs Govindbhai N. Patel (2015) 2015 Taxman 575. 5. The ld. AR has further submitted that the property in question was owned by Late Shri Harish Kumar who has also executed a will dated 12.07.2006 in favour of one Kumari Veena Shah. There was dispute between family members of the deceased regarding inheritance of the property through the will and the case was filed in the court of Ld. Additional and District Sessions Judge, Jaipur. Therefore, it is evident from the court record and order dated 22.02.2014 of the ld. Additional and District Sessions Judge that there was dispute between family members of deceased Late Shri Harish Kumar. The assessee explai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vide cheque dated 30.04.2008 out of the total consideration and the balance amount of Rs. 60,00,000/- was to be paid by the assessee subsequently. The said agreement further, enumerates time and manner of payment by the assessee regarding the balance amount of Rs. 60,00,000/- out of which a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- was to be paid within a month from the agreement, Rs. 25,00,000/- was to be paid to the Oriental Bank of Commerce to discharge the mortgage loan taken on this property and the balance of Rs. 29,50,000/- was to be paid at the time of registration of sale deed. Even otherwise without discharging the charge of mortgage with the bank the property could not be transferred through a registered sale deed. So far as the payment of Rs. 24,00....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her of Rs. 5,50,000/- was to be paid in the next month of the agreement. Except this agreement dated 30.04.2008 there was no other material found during the course of search to show that the assessee has made the balance of purchase consideration to the seller. The assessee explained before the AO well as ld. CIT(A) that due to the dispute between family members to the seller the transaction did not materialize and no payment other than paid at the time of agreement was made by the assessee. The AO has also accepted this fact that there was no material to show that the balance payment was made by the assessee and even the time period of the alleged payment. In support of his presumption the AO has not referred any evidence or material. Once....