TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 433
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in sources of the same, but the assessee did not furnish any detail. Hence the Assessing Officer completed the assessment to the best of his judgement under section 144 of the Act, wherein he assessed the above said amount of Rs. 1,77,32,218/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 3. Before learned CIT(A) the assessee furnished various details. It was submitted that the above said amount of Rs. 1,77,32,218/- represented net capital introduced by him. The details thereof were furnished as under : CAPITAL ACCOUNT Advances received : Rs. 4,20,09,999/- Loan from family members : Rs. 73,70,000/- Other receipts including loan : Rs. 1,26,66,759/- from outsiders : Rs. 6,20,46,758/- Less : withdrawals : Rs. 4,43,14,540/- Rs. 1,77,32,218/- Hence learned CIT(A) called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. The dispute herein is with regard to the advance of Rs. Rs.2,11,99,999/- received by the assessee. The facts relating thereto are that the assessee has entered into the MOU on 23-09-2009 for sale of the property located at Kashid Kopar, Vasai with M/s. Samarth Enterprises for a sum of Rs. 2,75,00,000/- and received a sum of Rs.2,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant Purchased the land bearing S. No. 51/1/1 & 52/1 at Kashid Kopar after executing Sale Deed ( Conveyance Deed) on 01-10 2011. The said Sale Deed is registered at Sr. No. 384/2011 before Asst. Sub- Registrar, Vasai-1. 2/ While the transaction of purchase / discussion was in progress, the appellant came across intending Purchaser [Samarth Enterprises represented by Mr. Rajendra Desai ] to Purchase land for Rs. 2,75,00,000/= 3/ Since the Appellant was not the Owner of the Land at that point of time, the appellant could not execute either Agreement for Sale or a Conveyance Deed with the said Samarth Enterprises. 4/ A Memorandum of Understanding [ "the MOU" ] was executed on 23-09- 2009 and as per the said MOU, the said Samarth Enterprises (Proprietor Rajendra Desal) paid Rs. 2,11,99,999/- to the appellant as follows: Rs. 99,99 999/- on 23-09-2009 through RTGS of IDBI Bank vide UTR No. UTIBH09266004691. Rs. 1,12,00,000/ on 21-01-2010 through RTGS of IDBI Bank vide UTR No. UTIBH10021025587. [Copy of the Memorandum of Understanding (M.O.U.) is attached herewith ]. 5/ The appellant [ along with Mr. Ranka ] became Absolute Owner by the Sale Deed referred above on 10-01-2011. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Enterprises (Mr. Rajendra Desai), the appellant had submitted: a/ Copy of Memorandum of Understanding. b/ Confirmation Letter from the said Samarth Enterprises (Rajendra Desai) stating the facts and that he is assessed to tax at Circle 4, Thane. c/ Copy of Letter dated 18-04-2011 and 23-07-2011 sent by the appellant to M/s. Samarth Enterprises (Rajendra Desai), being notice for demand of overdue payment of Rs. 63 Lacs. d/ Copy of Letter dated 26-11-2015 directly sent by Samarth Enterprise to the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir 2, Kalyan during the remar proceedings of the appellant. e/ Certificate given by the IDBI Bank, Ambernath East, confirming the payment received from the bank account of Samarth Enterprises. f) RBI RTGS Settlement Report showing the transfer from the bank account of Samarth Enterprises to he appellant's account [ 2 pages ]. Also attached herewith: Copy of letter forwarding letter dated 29-11-2 by Sarangdhar & Co., CAs in the course of remand proceedings, w explains the facts clearly. 4/ The Ld. Dy. CIT has observed in point C) on page 8 that "The proprietor of Samarth Enterprises Mr. Rajendra Desai who had advanced a sum of Rs. 2,11,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... We noticed that the assessee had entered into agreement for purchase of the property on 22-09-2009 and in turn, entered into agreement to sell the same to M/s Samarth Enterprises on 23-09-2009. In pursuance of the said agreement, the assessee has received the sum of Rs.2,11,99,999/- from M/s Samarth Enterprises as against the agreed consideration of Rs.2,75,00,000/-. The assessee himself could complete the purchase transaction on 01-10-2011 and hence the assessee could have transferred the land to M/s Samarth Enterprises only after that date. It is the submission of the assessee that the purchaser, viz., M/s Samarth Enterprises has not paid the balance consideration and hence the sale deed could not be executed. The assessee has also given copies of notices sent to M/s Samarth Enterprises asking them to complete the transaction. The said party has also confirmed the transaction in an independent enquiry. Hence we find no reason to doubt the genuineness of the transaction entered by the assessee with M/s Samarth Enterprises. The question as to whether the assessee should wait for completion of the sale transaction or should forfeit the advance money as per the clause stated in MOU....