2025 (6) TMI 1299

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed by the assessee are as under: "1. The CIT(A) has erred both in law and in fact in confirming the order of AO and thereby the addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- u/s 69A. 2. Your appellant submits that Sec.69A does not apply to the facts of the case and the amount credited is backed by proof and sources viz., as advance from customer whose details were submitted to the AO. 3. The CIT(A) is a lso erred in confirming addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- which has arisen and received as per Sale document dated 28.05.2018 i.e., A.Y.2019-20. Without prejudice or merits or any view taken by the authorities the income which has arisen as a result of sale deed for A.Y.2019-20 cannot form as income for A.Y. 2017-18 even on protective basis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....le of M/s Pragati Petroleum. On verification of the balance sheet as on 31.03.2017, the amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- each was shown advance from customer, namely, Shri Manojbhai Narshibhai Patel. The assessee submitted that the advance was taken from the above party in the subject year, but sale deed was executed on 28.05.2018. According to Assessing Officer (in short, 'AO'), in the sale deed, it has been mentioned that total sale consideration of Rs. 6,00,000/- was paid on the date of sale deed and the same was acknowledged by the assessee. Hence, the AO held that receipt of Rs. 6,00,000/- during the year was unexplained and made addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act. He observed that in case substantive view is not upheld, alternative....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Since the source of the amount has been explained, he requested to allow the appeal of assessee. 6. On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue supported the order of lower authorities. He submitted that it is not clear from the sale deed as to when the payment was made. However, the undisputed fact is that the same deed was executed on 28.05.2018, relevant assessment year, i.e., AY.2019-20. In absence of proper and credible information, deposit of cash during demonetization period in SBNs was rightly added by AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the assessee had deposit....