DCIT, Circle, Khanna V. Sh. Amrik Singh, Khanna

ITA 1016/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3410 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 31-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANDEEP DAHIA
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Source of fund; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Assessment record; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 133A; 68; 263

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1016/CHD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 SH. AMRIK SINGH, PROP. M/S RAJPUT JEWELLERS, GURU AMAR DASS MARKET, KHANNA PAN AFTPS3798B VS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, KHANNA (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) APPELLANT BY : SH. SANDEEP DAHIA, CIT DR RESPONDENT BY : SH. T.N. SINGLA, CA DATE OF HEARING : 21/02/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30/04 /2019 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG,JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE DEPART MENT AGITATING THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF THE INC OME TAX (APPEALS) ( IN SHORT THE CIT) ORDER DATED 03.05.2 018 IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO OF RS.12.00 CRORES U/ S 68 OF THE ACT. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: I. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT OF RS. 12,00,00,000/- BY TAKING ON RECORD NEW FACTS 2 PERTAINING TO THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PURCHASER COMPANY, M/S PENTA HOME PVT. LTD.?, II. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN TREATING TH E PAYMENT OF RS. 11 CRORE, OVER AND ABOVE RS. 1 CRORE PAID UPFRONT, BY THE PURCHASER COMPANY AS A GENUINE TRANSACTION ON THE BASIS OF A VAGUE UNREGISTERED AGREEMENT TO SELL WHEN SUCH PAYMENT WAS MADE WITHOUT ANY FURTHERANCE OF THE CONTRACT ON THE PART OF THE SELLER?, III. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTION AS GENUINE INSPITE OF THE BLATANTLY OVERPRICED DEAL WHICH WAS LATER RESCINDED, AND THE FACT THAT THE PURCHASE COST (RS. 1.30 CRORE) TO THE SELLER AND THE CIRCLE RATE WERE MUCH BELOW THE ALLEGED SALE (RS. 45 CRORE) PRICE? IV. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING ON ONE HAND THAT THE PURCHASER HAD SUFFICIENT FUNDS AND SIMULTANEOUSLY ON THE OTHER THAT THE PURCHASER HAD RENEGED ON THE AGREEMENT FOR JUSTIFIABLE REASONS, AND HENCE FINDING SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AS NOT ATTRACTABLE?.' 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND TRADING OF JEWELL ERY ITEMS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF HIS PROPRIETARY CONCERN , NAMELY, M/S RAJPUT JEWELERS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDING, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THERE WAS AN ADDITIO N OF RS.11.88 CRORES IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. ON B EING ASKED TO EXPLAIN IN THIS RESPECT, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THA T THE AMOUNT OF RS.11.88 CRORES WAS TRANSFERRED TO HIS CAPITAL ACCO UNT OUT OF THE BALANCE AMOUNT TO HIS CREDIT IN HIS SAVING BANK ACC OUNT. THE 3 ASSESSEE FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT THE AFORESAID AMOUN T OF RS.11.88 CRORES WAS RECEIVED THROUGH 12 RTGS ENTRIES DURING THE PERIOD FROM 19.08.2013 TO 22.09.2013 FROM THE ACCOUNT OF M /S PENTA HOMES PVT. LTD. IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT THE S AID AMOUNT CREDITED TO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE BASED ON ACCOUNT OF FORFEITURE OF ADVANCE/BIANA AMOUNT RECEIVED BY H IM IN PURSUANCE OF AN AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 19.08.2013 ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH M/S PENTA HOMES PVT. LTD. FOR THE SALE OF 50 KANALS OF LAND FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.45.00 CROR ES. IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT AS PER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE A GREEMENT TO SELL DATED 19.08.2013, RS.1.00 CRORE WAS TO BE PAID UPFRONT BY THE PURCHASER ON THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT TO SELL I.E. ON 19.08.2013 SUBJECT TO DEDUCTION OF TAX @1% AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.44 CRORES WAS TO BE PAID BY WAY OF 5 I NSTALLMENT AS UNDER: INSTALLMENT AMOUNT (RS.) DATE 1 ST 4 CRORES 31.08.2013 2 ND 5 CRORES 15.09.2013 3 RD 5 CRORES 30.09.2013 4 TH 5 CRORES 15.10.2013 5 TH 25CRORES 31.12.2013 4. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PURCHASER COMP ANY NAMELY M/S PENTA HOMES PVT. LTD. HAD PAID DUE INSTALLMENTS UPTO 15.09.2013 AND ALSO PAID RS.2.00 CRORES OUT OF THE THIRD INSTALLMENT 4 BUT DID NOT PAY ANY OF THE REMAINING INSTALLMENTS. THAT DUE TO NON PAYMENT OF THE REMAINING AMOUNT AS PER THE TERMS OF AGREEMENT, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF ADVANCE PAID BY THE PURCHASER COMPANY WAS FORFEITED AS PER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AG REEMENT TO SELL DATED 19.08.2013. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT BEF ORE FORFEITING THE AMOUNT OF ADVANCE, THE ASSESSEE HAD TRIED HIS L EVEL BEST TO GET THE SALE DEED EXECUTED IN RESPECT OF THE LAND I N QUESTION BUT IT WAS THE PURCHASER COMPANY WHICH DID NOT PAY THE BALANCE AMOUNT AND ALSO DID NOT TURN UP FOR EXECUTION OF TH E SALE DEEDS, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE AND HIS SON REMAINED PRESENT ON THE STIPULATED DATES IN THE OFFICE OF THE RESPEC TIVE SUB- REGISTRARS, WHERE THE SALE DEEDS WERE TO BE EXECUTE D. ON BEING ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION, ASSESSEE COMPANY SUPPLIED VARIOUS DOCUMENTS AND SUBMITTED THAT THE IDENTITY OF THE PURCHASER CO MPANY M/S PENTA HOMES PVT. LTD. WAS DULY ESTABLISHED AND FURT HER THE PURCHASER COMPANY HAD ALSO CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTIO N AND ADMITTED THAT THE AFORESAID AMOUNT OF RS.12.00 CROR ES WAS PAID BY IT TO THE ASSESSEE AS ADVANCE OF PURCHASE OF LAN D WHEREUPON THE COMPANY INTENDED TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A SHO PPING MALL. HOWEVER, SINCE LATER ON, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE PROJ ECT WAS NOT VIABLE AND THAT EVEN THERE WAS MISUNDERSTANDING WIT H THE 5 INVESTOR, HENCE, THE PROJECT WAS DROPPED. THE ASSES SEE COMPANY FURNISHED THE BANK STATEMENTS, CONFIRMATIONS AND IN COME TAX RETURN ETC. NOT ONLY OF THE ASSESSEE BUT ALSO OF TH E PURCHASER M/S PENTA HOMES PVT. LTD. HOWEVER, ASSESSING OFFICER DI D NOT ACCEPT THE ABOVE EXPLANATION AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D FAILED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PURC HASER AND ALSO THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. HE OBSERVED THA T THE AFORESAID AGREEMENT TO SELL RELIED ON BY THE ASSESS EE WAS NOT REGISTERED WHICH WAS MANDATORY AS PER THE LAW. THAT THE DETAILS OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE LAND IN QUESTION WERE NOT MENTIONED. THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAD PURCHASED THE LAND DU RING THE PERIOD FROM 2006 TO 2010 AT A VERY LOW RATE WHEREAS THE LAND WAS AGREED TO BE SOLD AT A VERY HIGH RATE OF RS.45.00 C RORES IN THE YEAR 2013. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT EVEN THE CIRCLE RATE OF THE P ROPERTY WAS VERY LOW AS COMPARED TO THE AGREED RATE AS PER THE AGREEMENT. THAT CONSIDERING THE HUGE AMOUNT OF RS.1 2.00 CRORES ALLEGEDLY FORFEITED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT DID NOT APP EAR PROBABLE THAT ANY COMPANY WOULD ALLOW GETTING SUCH A HIGH AM OUNT FORFEITED IN SUCH A MANNER. THE LD. AO, THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FABRICATED THE AGREEMENT TO SELL TO IN TRODUCE HIS OWN UNACCOUNTED MONEY OF RS.12.00 CRORES IN REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THAT THE ALLEGED TRANSACTION WAS SHAM TRAN SACTION 6 DESIGNED BY WAY OF A COLORABLE DEVICE. THAT EVEN TH E SOURCE OF FUND OF PURCHASER COMPANY WAS ALSO DOUBTFUL. HE, TH EREFORE, HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PROVE GENUINENESS O F TRANSACTION AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SOURCE FROM WHOM THE AS SESSEE HAD RECEIVED ALLEGED AMOUNT OF RS.12.00 CRORES. THE AO, THUS, ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS.12.00 CRORES AS THE UNACCOUNTED IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF T HE ACT. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 6. THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE VOLUMINOUS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND A LSO CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER THEREUPON, DELETED THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE AO ON THIS ISSU E OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUCCESSFULLY PROVED NOT ONLY THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION BUT ALSO THE IDENTIT Y AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PURCHASER M/S PENTA HOMES P VT. LTD. 7. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE LD. CI T(A), THE REVENUE HAS COME IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND HAVE ALS O GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND T HAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT ONLY GONE THROUGH THE FACTS AND EVID ENCES IN FILE 7 BUT HAS DISCUSSED IN DETAIL EACH AND EVERY ASPECT, DOUBT, CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE AO AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS SUCCESSFULLY REBUTTED EACH AND EVERY CONTENTION/OBS ERVATIONS /DOUBT RAISED BY THE AO ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF TH E TRANSACTION AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PROPOSED PURCHASER OF T HE LAND. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT THE LD. AO TO FIND OUT THE G ENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION HAD NOT ONLY SUMMONED THE ASSESSEE BUT ALSO DIRECTORS OF THE PURCHASER COMPANY M/S PENTA HOMES PVT. LTD. IN THEIR RESPECTIVE STATEMENTS, NOT ONLY THE ASSESSEE BUT ALSO THE DIRECTOR OF THE PURCHASER COMPANY CONFIRMED THE TRA NSACTION IN QUESTION. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE COPIES OF THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS INCLUDING THE COPY OF THE INCOME TAX RETU RN AND AUDITED BALANCE SHEET OF M/S PENTA HOMES PVT. LTD. FOR A.Y. 2014- 15 EVEN THE DIRECTORS OF THE M/S PENTA HOMES PVT. L TD. APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND IN THEIR STATEMENT CONFIRMED THE AFORESAID TRANSACTION. A SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE ACT WAS ALSO CARRIED OUT AT THE PREMISES OF M/S PENTA HOMES PVT. LTD. WHICH SHO WED THAT THE AFORESAID M/S PENTA HOMES PVT. LTD. WAS A GENUINELY EXISTING COMPANY TRANSACTING BUSINESS. THE LD. CIT(A), FROM THE EVIDENCE, HAS TAKEN NOTE OF THE FACT THAT M/S PENTA HOMES PVT . LTD. WAS A 8 WELL KNOWN COMPANY IN A REAL ESTATE BUSINESS HAVING NET WORTH IN SEVERAL CRORES, WHICH WAS STATED TO BE OUT OF ACCUM ULATED PROFITS. SO FAR AS THE SOURCE OF FUNDS ADVANCED TO THE ASSES SEE WAS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THE SAME WAS OUT OF SALE OF LAND TO M/S SUKHMANI BUILDE RS PVT. LTD. AND OUT OF THE AUTO SWEEP ACCOUNT WHERE THE SURPLUS MONEY OF THE PURCHASER COMPANY WAS LYING. APART FROM THAT TH E ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD SOLD LAND TO M/S SUSHMA BUILD TECH PVT. LTD. SO FAR AS THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AO THAT M/S PENTA HOME S PVT. LTD. HAD ROUTED THE UNACCOUNTED MONEY BY WAY OF SHARE AP PLICATION MONEY FROM FOUR COMPANIES, IT WAS DULY PROVED AND E XPLAINED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THE AFORESAID FOUR COMPANIES WHO HAD INVESTED IN M/S PENTA HOMES PVT. LTD. WERE NOT PAPE R COMPANIES RATHER THE SOME WERE DULY EXISTING COMPANIES HAVING VERY GOOD NET WORTH VALUE. EVEN THE INCOME TAX RETURNS AND OT HER DOCUMENTS ESTABLISHING THEIR IDENTITY AND WORTH VAL UE WERE ALSO FURNISHED BEFORE THE CIT(A). EVEN THE ORIGINAL AGRE EMENT WAS ALSO IMPOUNDED BY THE AO FROM THE PURCHASER COMPANY. HEN CE, THE CONTENTION OF THE AO THAT ORIGINAL AGREEMENT WAS NO T PRODUCED WAS ALSO REBUTTED. THE WITNESS OF THE AGREEMENT WER E ALSO PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO, WHO WAS CONFRONTED BY THE A O, HOWEVER HE DULY AFFIRMED AND VERIFIED THE AFORESAID TRANSACTION. 9 SO FAR AS THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AO THAT THE BOU NDARIES OF THE LAND WERE NOT MENTIONED, IT WAS DEMONSTRATED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF THE LAND WERE MENTIONED IN T HE ANNEXURE ATTACHED WITH THE AGREEMENT. THE ATTENTION OF THE C IT(A) WAS ALSO DRAWN TO THE CLAUSE 13 OF THE AGREEMENT, WHICH SPECIFIED THAT IF THE PURCHASER WOULD FAIL TO MAKE PAYMENT BE FORE THE DUE DATES MENTIONED, THE SELLER WOULD FORFEIT THE AMOUN T ALREADY RECEIVED. APART FROM THAT, THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED UPON THE DOCUMENTS TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE NOT ONLY ISSUED LEGAL NOTICES/REMINDERS TO THE PURCHASER BUT ALSO REMAINE D PRESENT BEFORE THE OFFICE OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR ON THE STIPU LATED DATES FOR EXECUTION OF REGISTRATION OF THE SALE DEED. HOWEVER , THE PURCHASER COMPANY DID NOT COME PRESENT. A CERTIFICA TE/AFFIDAVIT DULY ATTESTED BEFORE THE SUB REGISTRAR IN THIS RESP ECT WAS ALSO PRODUCED. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT AS PER THE PRO VISIONS OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, THE AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE REGISTERED, IF THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY WA S NOT GIVEN TO THE PURCHASER. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HANDOVER THE PO SSESSION OF THE PROPERTY TO THE PROPOSED PURCHASER. THE ASSESSE E ALSO DEMONSTRATED THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT BALANCE IN T HE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE PURCHASER COMPANY WHEN THE MONEY WAS ADVANCED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THAT THE NET WORTH VAL UE OF THE 10 PURCHASER COMPANY M/S PENTA HOMES PVT. LTD. AT THE BEGINNING OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS MORE THAN RS.51.00 CRORES WHICH WAS PRIMARILY OUT OF ACCUMULATED PROFITS AND SUBSTA NTIAL SALE OF LAND MADE BY THE SAID COMPANY. APART FROM THAT, COP IES OF THE ADVERTISEMENT PUBLISHED BY THE M/S PENTA HOMES PVT. LTD. IN NEWSPAPER WAS ALSO FURNISHED SHOWING THAT THE M/S P ENTA HOMES PVT. LTD. INTENDED TO LAUNCH THE PROJECT OF SHOPPIN G MALL AT THE LAND IN QUESTION. HOWEVER, DUE TO LITTLE PUBLIC RES PONSE AND ALSO DUE TO MISUNDERSTANDING WITH THE INVESTOR, THE PROJ ECT WAS DROPPED AND IT WAS NOT THOUGHT VIABLE TO PAY BALANC E MONEY OF THE LAND IN QUESTION. THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS WR ITTEN OFF IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE COMPANY. 8.1 THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL CONT ENTION AND THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE ON THE FILE HELD THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD NOT ONLY DISCHARGED HIS ONUS WITH REGARD TO IDENTITY OF THE PURCHASER COMPANY BUT ALSO DISCHARGED HIS ONUS WITH REGARD TO CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PURCHASER AND THE GENUINENE SS OF THE TRANSACTION. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ABSOLUTELY FAILED TO BRING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD T O SUBSTANTIATE HER VERSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INTRODUCED HIS OW N UNACCOUNTED INCOME BY WAY OF THIS TRANSACTION. THAT EVEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD FAILED TO BRING ANY SATISFACT ORY EVIDENCE ON 11 RECORD WHICH WOULD EVEN REMOTELY PROVE HER STAND. T HAT ASSESSEE HAD SUCCESSFULLY REBUTTED EACH AND EVERY CONTENTION /OBSERVATION OF THE AO THROUGH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. THAT EVEN A MOUNT IN QUESTION WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH BANKI NG CHANNEL AND THAT THE PURCHASER COMPANY HAD DULY ADMITTED TH E SAID TRANSACTION. THAT EVEN THE ASSESSEE HAD PROVED THE SOURCE OF SOURCE ALSO. EVEN THE ASSESSEE HAD PROVED THE CREDI TWORTHINESS OF THE SOURCE OF SOURCE I.E. OF THE COMPANIES FROM WHO M THE PURCHASER HAD RECEIVED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. THE LD. CIT(A) CONCLUDED THAT THE COPIES OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AND PURCHASER COMPANY, THE BOARD RESOLUTION OF PURC HASER COMPANY TO PURCHASE THE LAND AS WELL AS THE RESOLUT ION TO DROP THE PROJECT, THE VARIOUS STATEMENTS RECORDED BY THE AO FORMING THE PART OF ASSESSMENT RECORD WERE SUFFICIENT TO CO NCLUDE THAT THERE WAS NO OCCASION AT ALL TO DOUBT THE GENUINENE SS OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL AND FURTHER THE GENUINENESS OF TR ANSACTION IN QUESTION. THAT EVEN NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS F OUND AT THE PREMISES OF THE PURCHASER IN THE SURVEY OPERATION C ARRIED OUT U/S 133A OF THE ACT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO RELEVANT PART OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHEREIN THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO DISCUSSED ABOUT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND IN QUESTION. IT WAS EXPLAINED TO THE LD. CIT(A) 12 THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME HAD BECOME COMMERCIAL IN NATURE. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A ) SUBMITTED COPIES OF THE REPLIES TO VARIOUS APPLICATION MOVED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT TO CONFIRM AND PROVE THAT SIMILARLY SITUATED PROPERTY IN THE AREAS WERE TRANSACTED/SOLD AT SIMIL AR RATES/HIGHER RATES THEN THAT WAS AGREED INTO AGREEMENT IN QUESTI ON. SO THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE CIRCLE RATE OF THE PROPERTY WAS VERY LOW WHEREAS THE CONSIDERATION SET TLED IN THE AGREEMENT WAS HIGH, WAS REBUTTED BY PRODUCING THE E VIDENCE OF THE SALE/PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS OF SIMILARLY SITUATE D PROPERTIES AND ALSO IT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED THAT THE CIRCLE RATE OF THE PROPERTY WAS IN RESPECT OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND, WHEREAS, THE L AND OF THE ASSESSEE HAD BECOME COMMERCIAL IN NATURE. THE LD. C IT(A), THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD PROVE D BEYOND DOUBT THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PURC HASER AS WELL AS GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IN QUESTION AND H AS ALSO DULY PROVED THAT THE PURCHASER COMPANY HAD DROPPED THE P ROJECT AND THE ASSESSEE AS PER TERMS AND CONDITION OF THE AGREEMENT FORFEITED THE ADVANCED MONEY RECEIVED FROM THE PURC HASER. 9. THOUGH THE LD. DR PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AFORESAID TRANSACTION WA S A SHAM TRANSACTION AND COLORABLE DEVICE TO INTRODUCE THE U NACCOUNTED 13 MONEY OF THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, HE HAS FAILED TO RE BUT THE FACTUAL FINDING GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) WHICH ARE BASED ON THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. APART FROM THAT, THE LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PAGES 55 TO 63 OF THE PAPER BOOK TO SHOW THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION REG ARDING RECEIPT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY BY THE PURCHASER M/S PEN TA HOMES PVT. LTD. FROM OTHER FOUR COMPANIES WAS ALSO DOUBTE D BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WHO INVOKING THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 18.07.2018 HAD SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IN THE CASE O F M/S PENTA HOMES PVT. LTD. AND DIRECTED THE AO FOR PASSING THE FRESH ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER DULY EXAMINING THE ISSUE OF RECEIPT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AT PREMIUM BY M/S PENTA HOM ES PVT. LTD. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS FURTHER INVITED OUR ATTENT ION TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.12.2016 PASSED BY THE AO U/S 143 R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF M/S PENTA HOMES PVT. LTD. WHEREBY THE AO, AFTER MAKING DUE ENQUIRIES AS DIRECTED BY T HE CIT, HAS FINALLY ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSES SEE AND THEREBY HE MAINTAINED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29 .12.2013 PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND DID NOT MAKE ANY F RESH ADDITION. THE LD. COUNSEL THEREFORE, HAS SUBMITTED THAT EVEN DESPITE APPROPRIATE ENQUIRIES BY THE AO IN THE SET ASIDE PR OCEEDINGS IN 14 THE CASE OF M/S PENTA HOMES PVT. LTD., HE HAD ACCEP TED EVEN THE TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO THE RECEIPT OF SHARE APPLI CATION MONEY BY M/S PENTA HOMES PVT. LTD. AND THUS THE SOURCE OF SO URCE WAS ALSO PROVED BEYOND DOUBT. 10. CONSIDERING THE DETAILED FACTUAL FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH ARE BASED ON CREDIBLE DOCUMENTARY EVID ENCES AND HAVE REMAINED UNREBUTTED, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIF ICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). T HEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS UPHELD. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS HEREBY DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30/ 04 /2019) SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) ( SANJY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUD ICIAL MEMBER DATED : 30 / 04 /2019 AKS COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, THE C IT(A), THE DR