TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 497
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] qua the assessment year 2011-12 on the grounds inter-alia that :- "A. Reopening of the assessment is bad in law and liable to be quashed 1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the reopening of the assessment for AY 2011-12 on the basis of some unknown information without appreciating that - a) the Appellant has NOT made any transaction of purchase of property during the impugned assessment year b) the Appellant has NOT purchased any property from the builder Mis Sunshine Housing & Infrastructure P. Lad c) the Appellant has NOT paid any On-Money to any person d) there is no reason to believe and the reasons recorded are merely based on borrowed satisfacti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Rs. 1,25,39,000/- is without any justification and needs to be deleted. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) supported the order of the Ld. AO even though the same was in complete violation of principles of natural justice and thus, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that - a) no material or evidence whatsoever was given to the Appellant proving any payment of on-money for purchase of property, and even though requested to submit the same time and again; b) copy of statement recorded of one person so called Shri Nikhil Vora is not furnished even though relied upon by AO for reopening of assessment as also for making addition and even though requested to submit the same time and again; c) cross-examination of Shri Nikhil ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... agreement of office premises No.34, Sunshine Tower, bank statement for financial year 2010-11 reflecting the said transaction and source of fund. The assessee was also called upon to explain as to why an amount of Rs. 1,25,39,000/- was paid in cash for purchase of property bearing office premises No.34 in Sunshine Tower project of M/s. Sunshine Housing & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. being the difference in market value of agreement value. Declining the contentions raised by the assessee the AO proceeded to hold that the assessee has paid on money to the builders to the tune of Rs. 1,25,39,000/-, which was added to the income of the assessee being unexplained expenditure under section 69 of the Act and thereby framed the assessment under sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for sale dated 13.08.2012 was executed between M/s. Trincas Agencies & Commerce Pvt. Ltd. and the assessee for the purchase of office premises in question at the total sale consideration of Rs. 9,92,00,000/- which was more than the market value of the said property. 6. In the backdrop of the aforesaid undisputed facts and circumstances of the case the sole question arises for determination in this case is as to whether: "Addition of Rs. 1,25,39,000/- being the difference between agreement value and market value of the sale agreement dated 23.03.2010 entered into between M/s. Trincas Agencies & Commerce Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Sunshine Housing & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., in the name of the assessee who was not privy to the sale agreem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rather purchased the property in question vide sale agreement dated 13.08.2012 (A.Y. 2013-14) by virtue of the agreement entered into with M/s. Trincas Agencies & Commerce Pvt. Ltd., reopening on the basis of statement of Shri N.K. Vora, sales head of Sunshine group, Mumbai that on money of Rs. 1,25,39,000/- being the difference between agreement value and market value is not sustainable in the eyes of law being based upon incorrect facts. 10. The Ld. A.R. for the assessee also contended that by raising specific objections the AO was requested to provide copy of the statement of Shri N.K. Vora recorded under section 132(4) of the Act which has never been supplied rather in para 6.1 of the order dated 31.10.2018 passed for dismissing of ....