TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 2207
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rce of the cash was produced. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by deleting the addition of Rs. 1,74,34,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposit under Section 69A of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee has agreed to have been in possession of cash for transaction in immovable property. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by deleting the addition of Rs. 25,10,000/- on account of unexplained investment by the assessee. The amount was available in bank account of assessee and no evidence was furnished by him to prove the source of this amount used for investment in immovable property. 4. Further the tax effect involved in this case at Rs. 1,18,98,756/- is above the monetary limit specified in CBDT instruction no. 17/2019 dated 8.8.2019 for filing further appeal to ITAT. 2. Brief facts of the matters are that the assessee had filed his return of income under Section 139 of the Act for the AY 2015-16 on 29.3.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 9,02,820/- . Information in this case of assessee was received from ADIT(Inv)-III, Gurugram that the assessee has made sale and purchase of property amounting to Rs. 3,59,44,000/- during the FY 2014-15 relev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- Rs. 1,74,34,000/- and Rs. 35,10,000/- and accordingly assessed the total income at Rs. 3,58,67,090/- under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who under the impugned order dated 21.11.2023 allowed the appeal of the assessee with elaborate discussions on the issues in dispute. Hence, the instant appeal by the Revenue before us. 3. Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and reiterated the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal. 4. Per contra, Ld. AR has relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and submitted that there is no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A), which needs to be upheld. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the records available with us. The case of the assessee is that the assessee had filed his return of income for AY. 2015-16 on 29.3.2016 declaring an income of Ra. 9,02,120/- . We find that the AO received information from ADIT (Inv.)-III, Guragram that the assessee had made sale and purchase of property amounting to Rs. 35,945,000 during the F.Y. 2014-15 and during the purchase of the properties the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....both the parties cancelled agreement 1 and 2 due to which the assessee had to cancel agreements 4,5 and 6 in order to return the money to buyers in agreement 1 and 2. The Ld. AO was not satisfied with the reply of the assessee. The AO held that the agreement to sell his land pertained to F.Y 2013-14 but the sale proceed has not been disclosed in the return for A.Y. 2014-15. The AO rejected the contention of the assessee that the land sold was his personal land and that is why the same was not reflected in the balance sheet. The AO further held that the assessee has not produced any cancellation agreement to prove his point. The AO also stated that the agreements were not registered with the state revenue authorities as the unaccounted money has been used to invest in these land parcels. The assessee during the appellate proceedings has reiterated the stand taken before the AO. The assessee has submitted that while making the addition under Section 69A of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- (which was the advance paid by the assessee to Smt. Shakuntla Devi, the AO has not countered his claim that the assessee had paid the sum out of the advance received by him from the agreement to sell his land. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ney as explained by the assessee. Further that, if the Ld. AO was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee that he had received the money by entering into an agreement to sell his land, he could have used powers vested in him to examine the genuineness of agreement to sell by making independent enquiry which has not been done. The AO did not discharge his onus but merely rejected the sale agreement as to be not genuine as the same was only notarised and not registered and the sale of land was not reflected in the books and ITR of the assessee. We note that Ld. CIT(A) has drawn support from the decision of the ITAT, Delhi Coordinate Bench wherein, while deciding the case of Mobile Communication (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2010) has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Geneses Commet (P.) Ltd. (2007)163 Taxmann 482 (Delhi) and recorded the finding that if any officer is not inclined to believe the material placed by the assessee, he could have used statutory powers available to him. It has also been held that, having not exercised the said powers the Ld. AO was not justified to draw, adverse inference on the evidence furnished. As ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an agreement to sell her land but later on cancelled the same and had returned the advance money she received from the assessee. Thus, in view of the same the addition of Rs. 1,74,34,000/- made by the AO under section 69A was righty deleted by the Ld. CIT(A), so as not to warrant interference. Hence, we uphold the same and accordingly, reject the ground No. 2 raised by the Revenue. 7. As regards third addition made by the AO is of Rs. 35,10,000/- under Section 69, we note that the Ld. AO stated that the total investment made by the assessee was of Rs. 3.59.44.000/- out of which Rs. 3,24,34,000/- had been paid in cash which had been found to be unexplained and as the assessee failed to explain the source of remaining Rs. 35,10,000/- the same was added under Section 69 of the Act as unexplained investment. The assessee in his reply has submitted that the aggregate value of all agreements to purchase entered into by the assessee (agreement Nos. 3,4,5 and 6) was Rs. 35,944,000/-, Out of the same, a total of Rs. 3,14,34,000 was paid by cash Rs. 20,00,000 was paid by RTGS and Rs. 25,10,000 (as elaborated in table below) remained unpaid which was to be paid at the time of registration.....