TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 1291
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....law in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,31,25,000/- made by the AO, as discussed on page 28 of the assessment order and para 4 and 6 on page 6 & 8 of the appellate order. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and law in confirming the addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- made by the AO, as discussed on page 28 of the assessment order and para 5 and 7 on page 7 & 8 of the appellate order. 5. That the Appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off." 2. At the very outset, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee sought to withdraw Ground No.2 with regard to initiation of proceedings u/s 147/148 and since that ground No. of appeal stands withdrawn, the ground No. 2 is dismissed. 3. The first ground is general in nature and the third ground of appeal is about the addition of Rs. 1,31,25,000/- as confirmed by the CIT(A). It has been argued that the facts and circumstances leading to addition of Rs. 1,31,25,000/- are the same as in Assessment Year 2006-07 in the case of Sh. Darshan Kumar HUF in ITA No. 176/Asr/2017, in the sense that during the sourvey at Hotel Sagar on 19th of September 2007, certain documents in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h. Darshan Kumar HUF and Mr. Harish Kumar and for the share of the assessee in respect of advance money paid, the addition was made in the hands of Darshan Kumar HUF to the tune of Rs. 43 lacs & Rs. 72 lacs in the hands of Sh. Harish Kumar. This fact has not been disputed in the case of Sh. Darshan Kumar HUF and, though, the addition was made in the hands of HUF and the assessee has gone to Vivad Se Vishwas scheme of the department and the issue had been settled. The appeal of Sh. Darshan Kumar [Ind] through L/h Harish Garg for AY 2006-07 [ITA NO. 239/Asr/2016 and CO No. 26/Asr/2017] has also been fixed for hearing before this Hon'ble Bench for AY 2007-08. (vi) That as per renewal of the agreement Rs. 59,50,000/- was paid by two co-owners i.e. Sh. Darshan Kumar HUF and Sh. Harish Garg for which the addition of Rs. 29,75,000/- each has been made in the hands of Sh. Darshan Kumar HUF and Sh. Harish Garg. (vii) The appeal of Sh. Darshan Kumar HUF for AY 2007-08 ITA No. 176/Asr/ 2017 has also been fixed for hearing before this Hon'ble Bench. (viii) Thus, from the above fact, it is quite evident that the Assessing Officer has accepted that the investment has b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appeal on this issue has been dismissed. (iii) That both the Ld. Assessing Officer & CIT(A) has ignored the fact that the particulars of the property, name of the seller, Area of property for which the valuation report has been prepared tallies with the particulars as mentioned in the Agreement and its renewal which has been placed on page 1 to 9B of the paper book and for which the addition for advance paid has already been made in the hands of Sh. Darshan Kumar HUF and Harish Garg for AY 2006-07 & 2007-08 for which the details have been given on paragraph (v) on page 2 of the submissions. [Agreement and its renewal along with english translation on page 1 to 9B]. (iv) In view of the above stated facts, since the agreement to purchase the property, for which the valuation report has been prepared, has been executed in the status of HUF by the assessee and the addition for the payments of advance as per agreement and its renewal has been added proportionately in the hands of the assessee in HUF status for AY 2006-07 and 2007-08, the findings of the CIT(A) in para 6 on page 8 of the appellate order that "thus the contention of the appellant that the addition ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1,25,000/- as confirmed by the CIT(A) is ordered to be deleted. 8. With regard to Ground No.4, it is submitted that the CIT(A) has confirmed the addition of Rs. 7 lacs as per para 7 of the order and the Assessing Officer has discussed this issue at page 28 & 29 of his order. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee argued that this addition of Rs. 7 lacs was not maintainable and for which, in his brief synopsis, he has given the following submissions:- Submissions regarding addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- The documents relating to addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- being the ½ of Rs. 14,00,000/- is on PB 64-70 of the paper book. (i) Copy of agreement with Sh. Rajinder Mittal S/o Babu Ram Dt. 13.05.2005 [FY 2005-06 relevant to AY 2006-07] PB 64-66 of the paper book. (ii) Copy of legal notice through advocate issued to Rajinder Mittal Dt. 20.09.2006 [FY 2006-07 relevant to AY 2007-08]. [PB 67-70 of the paper book.] (iii) The perusal of both the documents discloses the following facts: - (a) That the legal notice Dt. 20.09.2006 relates to the agreement to sell [PB 65 of the paper book] executed by Sh. Darshan Kumar alongwith other persons as p....