TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 403
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the same. 3. The learned Officers below failed to consider the submission of the appellant that the registered sale agreement cannot be deemed to be cancelled unless it was agreed by both the parties in the manner known to law. The Learned Officers below cannot conclude that agreement between the parties stands terminated without bringing any evidence on record. The Learned Officers below ought to have considered the submission of the appellant, stating that the sale transaction has not been completed till date due to the legal issues in the property, which was not taken cognizance of by the learned Officers below while passing the Orders. 4. The Learned Officers below failed to take note of clause no 13 of the Page no 8 of the Registered Sale Agreement which states if the vendors fail to produce the documents within the stipulated time before registration and avoid registration, then the vendors shall pay 20 percent extra amount on the advance amount including improvement charges to purchaser, if any, and on the other hand if the purchaser fails to pay the balance sale consideration within the stipulated time and avo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tal asset and existence of valid registered sale agreement the entire advance sum cannot be forfeited. Under this circumstance the observation of the learned officer is grossly incorrect and very much prejudicial as inference has to be drawn based on the facts and material produced on record and mentioning certain statements without any basis and concluding on the matter with such observation is against the law and justice and the same is very much objectionable. 10. The initiation of penalty U/s 270A of the Act is not tenable in law as the appellant has not under reported the particulars of their income and therefore ought to be dropped. 11. The levy of interest U/s 234B is excessive and ought to be deleted. 12. Without prejudice, the tax assessed is excessive, unreasonable and is liable to be dropped. 13. For these and other reasons that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed. 14. In view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the Appeal, the Appellant prays that Appeal may be allowed in the interest of justice and equity. 15. Eac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed even after a period of 9 years could not be a genuine case for not treating the said advance amount received as income in the hands of the assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) also observed that the assessee had not stated about the status of Rs. 50 Lakhs received from the purchaser. Therefore the Ld.CIT(A) had confirmed the receipt of Rs. 50 Lakhs as income in the hands of the assessee. 3. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before this Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the property was owned by the assessee along with the other co-owners and the advance for the said sale was received on 09/06/2015 i.e. during the A.Y. 2016-17 and therefore the advance amount received during the A.Y. 2016-17 could not be treated as income for the A.Y. 2017-18 on the assumption that the sale agreement was cancelled and the advance amount was forfeited by the assessee. The Ld.AR further submitted that the sale agreement is a registered instrument and therefore unless and until the said registered sale agreement was cancelled by executing another registered cancellation deed, in the eye of law there is no cancellation of the said sale agreement. The Ld.AR f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d ab initio. 2. Before making the above addition, the Ld. AO has not obtained the requisite approval from the Hon'ble Principal Commissioner of Income Tax as mandated by CBDT Instruction No.7/2014 [F.N0.225/229/2014-ITAJI], dated 26-9-2014, Para 4 thereof; Instruction No.20/2015 [F.NO.225/269/2015-ITA-II], dated 29-12-2015; Instruction No.5/2016 [F.NO.225/269/2015-ITA.11], dated 14-7-2016; Letter [F.NO.DGIT(VIG.) /HQ/SI/ 2017- 18], dated 30-11-2017; Letter F. No. 225/169/2019/ITAII, dated 5-9-2019. Hence, the scrutiny order was bad in law." 8. We have also perused the notice issued u/s. 143(2) on 11/09/2018 from which it is evidenced that the assessee's case has been selected for limited scrutiny and the following issues have been identified for examination. i) Cash deposits during the year ii) Cash withdrawals 9. As seen from the said notice, the revenue had selected for limited scrutiny about the cash deposits and withdrawals made during the A.Y. 2017-18. Admittedly, in the present case, the advance amount was received during the F.Y. 2015-16 after executing a registered sale agreement on 09/06/2015. Therefore the advance amount has been recei....