TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1028
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The sole grievance of the Revenue in this appeal relates to the Ld. CIT(A)'s action of deleting the addition of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- made by way of unaccounted income of the assessee. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual who is carrying on business of real estate broking agency under the name & style of M/s National Estate. For the relevant AY 2020-21, the assessee had filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 9,12,880/-. In the meanwhile, a search action u/s 132 of the Act took place on the premises of M/s Jayapriya Company Group, in the course of which, the assessee was also searched u/s 132 of the Act. Accordingly, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ement and held it to be in the nature of commission income received from M/s Jayapriya Group. According to AO, the assessee had not disclosed commission income commensurate to the services rendered to M/s Jayapriya Group and that the assessee in connivance with M/s Jayapriya Group had disguised the commission income by way of land advance. The AO accordingly treated the receipt of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- as the unaccounted commission income of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who was pleased to delete the same. Now the Revenue is in appeal before us. 4. Assailing the action of the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. DR argued that the impugned receipt was actually commission income of the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....20 N. Mohammad Ashik Rs.20,00,000 19.03.2020 N. Mohammad Iqbal Rs.20,00,000 19.03.2020 A. Nagoorgani Rs.60,00,000 TOTAL Rs.2,00,00,000 7. The case of the Revenue is that, the impugned sum received from M/s Jayapriya Company was not an advance but commission income. We however note that, the payer vide their confirmation dated 01.04.2020 which was filed before the AO on 27.09.2022 had confirmed that they had paid the impugned advance of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- towards purchase of land to the assessee & his sons. It is observed that, the payer had also submitted their signed ledger account, wherein it confirmed that the sum of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- was outstanding in the name of the assessee as on 31.03.2020 and was due....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng to the appellant as appearing the books of accounts of M/s. Jayapriya Group. As per the ledger account, the sum of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- is the closing balance as outstanding in the books of accounts of Jayapriya property developers for the FY 2019-20. Further, as per the ledger account, in the name of Nagoor Gani maintained by Jayapriya property developers, the amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- has been utilized for the various projects of Jayapriya group and the closing balance as on 31-03-2021 is Rs. 25,40,000/-. As per the ledger account furnished for the FY 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24, the amount of Rs. 25,40,000/- is still outstanding. From the above it is clear that M/s Jayapriya property developers also shown in their books as advance to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tly allowed. 8. The Ld. DR had argued that, as the land deal did not ultimately materialize and the same was later on adjusted against some other dues/payables suggested that this advance was not genuine but an afterthought to disguise assessee's commission income which was not offered to tax during the year. We find this argument to be based solely on suspicion and lacking any merit. The Ld. AR pointed out that, the assessee had initially intended to sell his land to M/s Jayapriya Company but due to onset of COVID-19, the entire market scenario had changed and therefore the deal did not materialize. So far as the refund of advance was concerned, it was explained that, since the assessee was also donning the hat as Jayapriya Group's agen....