TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1041
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oceedings under section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for Assessment Year 2014-15. Since common facts are involved, both appeals are disposed of by this consolidated order. We first adjudicate ITA No. 236/SRT/2023. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds in ITA No. 236/Srt/2023. "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A)has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in making addition of Rs. 1,04,43,966/- on account of alleged trading profit from sale of agricultural land. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A)has erred in confirming the action of assessin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the additions. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before us. Ground No. 1: Addition of Rs. 1,04,43,966/- on account of trading profit from sale of agricultural land 6. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had entered into a Satakhat dated 30.03.2012 with the original owner for purchase of agricultural land for a consideration of Rs. 3,04,05,260/- and had paid an advance of Rs. 1,71,00,000/-. Subsequently, the assessee entered into another Satakhat dated 02.08.2013 agreeing to sell the same land to Shri Dipakbhai Mangubhai Ahir for a consideration of Rs. 4,20,09,666/- and received an advance of Rs. 1,71,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer treated the differ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied upon the findings of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the substantial difference between the two agreements clearly indicated intention of trading and earning profit and that the cancellation documents were not found during survey. 6.3 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The Assessing Officer taxed the amount of Rs. 1,04,43,966/- on consideration of Rs. 4,20,09,666/- allegedly received by the assessee either from Dipakbhai and/or Santoshkumar Balvantsingh and/or Mahavirprasad Sumerchand and/or Laljibhai Mangubhai. The revenue has not taxed consideration paid by them in their cases. The onus of proof lies squarely on th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsidered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The Assessing Officer wrongly made the addition in as much as the assessee was neither the owner of the land nor the purchaser of the land but he was acting as a dealer of the land for carrying out the sale deal to earn dalali commission income. The payment was made by the prospective buyer Dinesh Desai who was subsequently repaid to him on cancellation of the deal and therefore, there was no question of making any investment by the assessee to the tune of Rs. 2,10,000/- and hence, the action of the Assessing Officer in treating the said amount as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act is devoid of merits, hence deleted. The appeal of the assessee on this....