2023 (11) TMI 866

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....filed by the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 39 days in filing the appeal. 4. For the reasons given in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 5. The application is disposed of. ITA 582/2023 6. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 7. Via the instant appeal, the appellant/revenue seeks to assail the order dated 10.03.2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, "Tribunal"]. 8. The controversy that arises in the present appeal is whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "the Act"] with regard to the purported....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., the partner. 13. The reference to the documents is made in paragraph 5 and 6 of the impugned order. The record also shows that according to the appellant/revenue, cash amounting to Rs. 6.50 crores was paid by the respondent/assessee, i.e., Tarlok Singh and Mr Narinder Singh Punihani paid Rs. 6.25 crores. The total consideration paid by the respondent /assessee, i.e., Tarlok Singh was Rs. 8 crores and as noticed above, Rs. 6.50 crores, according to the AO was paid in cash while the balance amount, i.e., Rs. 1.50 crores, was paid by way of cheque(s). 14. The document based on which the addition was made by the AO is extracted in paragraph 12 of the impugned order. For the convenience, the same is extracted hereafter: "12. The....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....following factual reasons: (i) Kulbir Singh Punihani died in August 2011. The addition in issue towards cash was made in AY 2014-15. (ii) None of the legal heirs of Kulbir Singh Punihani were examined. (iii) The wife of the deceased Kulbir Singh Punihani, i.e., Ms Saloni Punihani filed an affidavit in which she inter alia asserted that neither did the respondent/assessee, i.e., Tarlok Singh nor Narinder Singh Punihani advanced any cash to her. The affidavit of Ms Saloni Punihani, which also forms part of the impugned order, avers that the share of the deceased Kulbir Singh Punihani was converted into a loan account and the amount reflected therein was paid thereafter over a period of time. (iv) The docume....