ITO, Ward - 6(1), Kolkata, Kolkata V. M/s. Chirag Credit Capital Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1433/KOL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 143323514 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 12-07-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NIRANJAN SATPATI
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL SURANA
• Keywords: Business income; Income from undisclosed sources

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.: 1433/KOL./2010 AS SESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 PAGE 1 TO 9 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA C BENCH, KOLKATA CORAM : SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. NO.: 1433/KOL./ 2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-2007 INCOME TAX OFFICER,................................ ...........APPELLANT WARD-6(1), KOLKATA, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, 6 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-700 069 -VS.- M/S. CHIRAG CREDIT CAPITAL PVT. LTD.,.............. ............RESPONDENT 113, N.S. ROAD, 4 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-700 001 [PAN : AABCC 2997 A] APPEARANCES BY: SHRI NIRANJAN SATPATI, JCIT, SR. D.R., FOR THE DEPA RTMENT SHRI SUNIL SURANA, A.R., FOR THE ASSESSEE DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : JANUARY 08, 2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : JANUARY 10, 2014 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEROGE: 1. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST AN O RDER DATED 29.04.2010 OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- VI, KOLKATA FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. IT HAS RAISED THREE GROUND S OF WHICH GROUND NO. 3 IS GENERAL NEEDING NO ADJUDICATION. GROUND NO . 1 OF THE REVENUE READS AS FOLLOWS :- THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS IN FAC TS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.18 LAKHS BEING RECEIVED ON SALE OF PLOT OF LAND AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 2. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE ENGAGED IN THE B USINESS OF FINANCE AND INVESTMENT HAD FILED ITS RETURN FOR THE IMPUGNE D ASSESSMENT YEAR, DECLARING INCOME OF RS.9,940/-. NATURE OF BUSINESS MENTIONED BY ASSESSEE THROUGH ITS TAX AUDIT REPORT WAS FINANCE AND INVEST MENT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, IT WAS NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD EFFECTED I.T.A. NO.: 1433/KOL./2010 AS SESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 PAGE 1 TO 9 2 SALE OF A PIECE OF LAND FOR RS.18,00,000/-. IN ITS ACCOUNTING POLICIES MENTIONED AS ANNEXURE-A OF THE SCHEDULES TO ITS A UDITED ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 ST MARCH, 2006, IT HAD STATED THAT THERE WAS A CHANGE IN POLICY REGARDING INVESTMENT IN PLOTS FROM THE RELEV ANT PREVIOUS YEAR. THE CHANGE IN POLICY WAS THAT INVESTMENTS IN PLOTS WERE TREATED AS PART OF BUSINESS AND SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD PURCHASES. ASSE SSEE OWNED FOUR PLOTS OF LAND OF WHICH THE SUM OF RS.18,00,000/- WA S RECEIVED BY IT ON PLOT NO. 78, A BLOCK, SECTOR-92 OF NOIDA. IN ITS RE TURN OF INCOME ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED THE PROFIT ARISING ON THE ABOVE SALE UN DER THE HEAD SHORT- TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, ASSE SSING OFFICER CALLED FOR THE DETAILS OF THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF THE SAID PLOT. FROM THE COPIES OF AGREEMENTS FILED, ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING ANY RIGHT OVER THE SAID PROPERTY FOR EFFECTI NG A SALE. AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGR EEMENT WITH ONE MRS. INDIRA SHARMA ON 19.10.2004 BY WHICH SHE HAD AGREED TO TRANSFER HER LEASE RIGHT IN THE ABOVE PROPERTY TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE SAID AGREEMENT WAS REVOKED BY THE PARTIES ON 11.08.2005 AND AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT WAS NEVER ACTED UPON. ADVANCE OF RS.10,00,000/- PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO MRS. INDI RA SHARMA WAS RETURNED WHEN THE AGREEMENT WAS REVOKED ON 11.08.20 05. ON THE VERY SAME DAY, THERE WAS A TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT ENTERED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH MRS. INDIRA SHARMA AND ONE MR. ANIL SINGL A. AS PER THIS AGREEMENT, MR. ANIL SINGLA PURCHASED THE LEASE RIGH T OVER THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM MRS. INDIRA SHARMA AND THE ENTIRE CON SIDERATION OF RS.18,00,000/- WAS PAID BY SHRI ANIL SINGLA TO THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE HAD NOMINATED SHRI ANIL SINGLA IN ITS PLACE THROUGH THI S AGREEMENT. CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THROUGH THE TRIPARTITE AGREEM ENT IT HAD SOLD ITS RIGHT IN THE PLOT AND SINCE THE PURCHASE CONSIDERAT ION ALREADY STOOD PAID BY IT TO MRS. INDIRA SHARMA WHAT WAS RECEIVED ON SA LE WAS ENTIRELY ITS MONEY. I.T.A. NO.: 1433/KOL./2010 AS SESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 PAGE 1 TO 9 3 4. ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER DISBELIEVED THE ABOVE EXPLANATIONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO HIM, ASSESSEE HAD CLA IMED RECEIPT OF TWO CHEQUES OF RS.9,00,000/- EACH FROM SHRI ANIL SINGLA . HOWEVER, AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE PAYMENT RECEIVED WERE BY TWO DEMAND DRAFTS AND THE CHEQUES RECEIVED WERE NOT FROM SHRI ANIL SINGLA . FURTHER AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THERE WAS NOTHING DUE FROM MRS. INDIRA SHARMA TO THE ASSESSEE NOR ASSESSEE HAD ANY RIGHT OVER THE PROPER TY FOR RECEIVING ANY PAYMENT FROM SHRI ANIL SINGLA. ASSESSING OFFICER CA ME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT DEPOSITS OF RS.18,00,000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE HAD NO LINK WITH THE TRANSFER OF LEASEHOLD RIGHTS MENTI ONED IN THE TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT. HE THEREFORE MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.18,0 0,000/- UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 5. IN ITS APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ARGUME NT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.18,00,000/- RECEIVED FROM SHRI ANIL SINGLA WAS ONLY THROUGH TWO BANKERS CHEQUE OF RS.9,00,000/- EA CH, WHICH WAS MENTIONED IN THE TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT DATED 11.08.2 005. ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPOSIT OF RS.18,00,000/- IN THE BANK WAS CERTIFIED BY THE BANKER AND LETTER FROM THE BANKER WAS ALSO PROD UCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SHOW THAT IT WAS THE VERY SAME DRAFT WHICH WERE PAID BY SHRI ANIL SINGLA. AS PER ASSESSEE THE PLOT NUMBE R AND OTHER DETAILS EXACTLY TALLIED AND THE BANK STATEMENT AND CONFIRMA TIONS OUGHT NOT HAVE BEEN DISBELIEVED. 6. LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS APPRECIATIVE OF THE ABOVE C ONTENTION. ACCORDING TO HIM, THOUGH IN THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT ENTERED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH MRS. INDIRA SHARMA, PAYMENT RECEIVED BY MRS. INDIRA SHARMA WAS MENTIONED AT RS.10,00,000/- ONLY, THERE WAS ANOTHER PAYMENT OF RS.3,50,000/- BY CHEQUE TO MRS. INDIRA S HARMA. HENCE COST OF RS.13,50,000/- WAS CORRECTLY SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. AS PER LD. CIT(APPEALS) EVEN THOUGH THERE WERE MISTAKES IN LEG AL DOCUMENTATION, I.T.A. NO.: 1433/KOL./2010 AS SESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 PAGE 1 TO 9 4 THE COURSE OF EVENTS CLEARLY SHOWED THAT SOURCE OF DEPOSITS OF RS.18,00,000/- WAS CONSIDERATION RECEIVED ON SALE O F PROPERTY BEARING NO. 78 IN BLOCK-A, SECTOR-92 OF NOIDA TO SHRI ANIL SINGLA. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER HE DELETED ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 7. NOW BEFORE US LD. D.R. STRONGLY ASSAILING THE OR DER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) SUBMITTED THAT THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH SMT. INDIRA SHARMA STOOD CANCELLED ON 11.08.2005 AND SINCE IT STOOD CANCELLED, THERE WAS NO RIGHT WHATSO EVER WITH THE ASSESSEE ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. FURTHER ACCORDING TO LD. D .R., ASSESSEE HAD STATED THAT THE SUM OF RS.18,00,000/- CREDITED IN ITS BANK ACCOUNT CAME OUT OF CHEQUES RECEIVED FROM SHRI ANIL SINGLA WHEREAS THE ACTUAL CREDITS WERE OF DEMAND DRAFTS. THUS THERE WAS NO LINK BETWEEN SO-CA LLED SALE OF LEASEHOLD RIGHTS AND THE AMOUNT OF RS.18,00,000/- R ECEIVED. EVEN OTHERWISE, ACCORDING TO LD. D.R., ASSESSEE HAD CONV ERTED ITS INVESTMENTS IN PLOTS OF LAND PURCHASED AND TREATED IT AS PART O F BUSINESS AND, THEREFORE, COULD NOT CLAIM ANY SURPLUS PAYMENT ON S ALE OF SUCH PLOTS OF LAND UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS. 8. PER CONTRA LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE AGREEMENT S WERE ALL ON RECORD. ACCORDING TO HIM, THOUGH ORIGINAL AGREEMENT WITH SMT. INDIRA SHARMA STOOD CANCELLED ON 11.08.2005, ON THE VERY S AME DATE THE TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT THROUGH WHICH LEASEHOLD RIGHT ON THE PLOT WAS SOLD TO SHRI ANIL SINGLA WAS ENTERED INTO. THE COURSE OF EVENTS WAS CLEARLY MENTIONED IN THE TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT WHICH HAS BEE N ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT CLEARLY PROVED THAT THE SUM OF RS.18,00,000/- HAD COME FROM SHRI ANIL SINGLA ON LY. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE FIRST PLACE WE NOTICE T HAT ASSESSEE HAD IN ITS AUDITED FINAL ACCOUNTS, CLEARLY MENTIONED A CHANGE OF ACCOUNTING POLICY, I.T.A. NO.: 1433/KOL./2010 AS SESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 PAGE 1 TO 9 5 AND AS PER THE CHANGED POLICY, INVESTMENTS IN PLOTS WERE SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD PURCHASE AND TREATED AS PART OF BUSINESS. ON CE IT IS SO, WE ARE UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND HOW ASSESSEE COULD SHOW IN ITS COMPUTATION THE SURPLUS ARISING OUT OF ANY SALE OF PLOT, OR ANY RIG HT IN ANY PLOT UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS. IT COULD HAVE BEE N ONLY PART OF ITS BUSINESS. NO DOUBT, THE TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT DATED 11.08.2005 PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGES 77 TO 80 CLEARLY MENTIONS THAT ASS ESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH SMT. INDIRA SHARMA WHEREBY H E HAD AGREED TO PURCHASE THE LEASEHOLD RIGHT HELD BY SMT. INDIRA SH ARMA IN PLOT NO. 78, A BLOCK, SECTOR-92 OF NOIDA. IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT SH RI ANIL SINGLA, WHO WAS THE THIRD PARTY IN THE AGREEMENT, WAS SUBSTITUTED I N PLACE OF ASSESSEE ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE BY VIRTUE OF WHICH THE SAID PARTY GOT THE TRANSFER EFFECTED TO IT FROM SMT. INDIRA SHARMA. RE LEVANT PART OF THE AGREEMENT IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER :- THIS TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT IS MADE AND EXECUTED AT N OIDA, ON THIS 11 DAY OF AUGUST, 2005, BETWEEN MRS. INDIRA SHARMA, WIFE OF SHRI M.K. SHARMA, R/O 120, AMAR JYOTI KUNJ, MAYUR VIHAR, PHASE-1, DELHI-110 091, OF THE FIRST PART, H EREINAFTER CALLED THE FIRST PARTY. -AND- M/S. CHIRAG CREDIT & CAPITAL PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS R EGISTERED OFFICE AT 90-91, NAVEEN MARKET, KANPUR, (U.P.), THR OUGH ITS DIRECTOR SH. VIKAS MALHOTRA, S/O LATE SHRI M.S. MAL HOTRA, R/O 58, TAGORE ROAD, CANTT. KANPUR, U.P., VIDE RESO LUTION DATED 25.09.2004, OF THE SECOND PART, HEREINAFTER C ALLED THE SECOND PARTY. -AND- MR. ANIL SINGLA, SON OF SHRI CHAMAN LAL SINGLA, R/O 363, GURU HAR GOVIND NAGAR, PHAGWARA, PUNJAB, OF THE THI RD PART, HEREINAFTER CALLED THE THIRD PARTY. (THE EXPRESSION OF PARTY NO. 1, 2 & 3 WHEREVER THEY OCCUR IN THE BODY OF THIS AGREEMENT SHALL INCLUDE THEIR RESP ECTIVE HEIRS, SUCCESSORS, LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, ADMINISTR ATORS, EXECUTORS AND ASSIGNS). WHEREAS THE FIRST PARTY IS THE OWNER ALLOTTEE, LESS EE, AND IN POSSESSION OF RESIDENTIAL VACANT PLOT OF LAND CONTA INED BY MEASUREMENT 300 SQ. METERS NUMBERED AS 078, BLOC K NO. A SITUATED AT SECTOR 92, IN NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL I.T.A. NO.: 1433/KOL./2010 AS SESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 PAGE 1 TO 9 6 DEVELOPMENT AREA, (NOIDA), DIST. GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR (U.P.) (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS PROPERTY). WHEREAS BY VIRTUE OF THE AGREEMENT DT. 19.10.2004 T HE FIRST PARTY, HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR THE SALE OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED PLOT IN FAVOUR OF THE SECOND PA RTY FOR A SUM OF RS.19,50,000/- (RUPEES NINETEEN LACS FIFTY T HOUSAND ONLY). AND WHEREAS THE SAID CONSIDERATION HAS THUS BEEN PA ID BY THE SECOND PARTY TO THE FIRST PARTY AND THE PARTY N O.1 HAS NO CLAIM WHATSOEVER PENDING AGAINST PARTY NO. 2. AND WHEREAS THE SECOND PARTY HAS REQUESTED THE FIRS T PARTY FOR EXECUTION OF THIS AGREEMENT IN FAVOUR OF THIRD PARTY, THE PRESENT INTENDING PURCHASER OF THE SAID PROPERTY, THE FIRST PARTY HAS ACCEPTED THE REQUEST OF THE SEC OND PARTY AND HAS AGREED TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT AND TRANSF ER, DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE THIRD PARTY ON THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT. THAT THE ENTIRE CONSIDERATION AMOUNT OF THE SAID PR OPERTY IS FIXED BETWEEN THE SECOND AND THE THIRD PARTIES AT RS.18,00,000/- (RUPEES EIGHTEEN LACS ONLY) WHICH SH ALL BE PAID BY THE THIRD PARTY TO THE SECOND PARTY AND/OR NOIDA AS THE FIRST PARTY HAS ALREADY TAKEN THE PAYMENT FROM THE SECOND PARTY. NO DOUBT THE TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT DOES NOT MENTION ANYTHING REGARDING THE REVOCATION OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 19.10.2004 EN TERED BY ASSESSEE WITH MRS. INDIRA SHARMA. HOWEVER, THE DATE OF THE R EVOCATION AND DATE OF THE TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT WERE ONE AND THE SAME I.E. 11.08.2005. THIS WOULD CLEARLY IMPLY THAT THE SAID REVOCATION WAS ON LY A SUPPLEMENT TO THE TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT, TO SAVE THE ULTIMATE PURCHASE R FROM ANY CLAIM THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON A LATER D ATE. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION THE CONSIDERATION OF RS.18 LAKHS RECEIVED B Y THE ASSESSEE WAS INTRINSICALLY CONNECTED WITH THE TRANSACTIONS IN TH E SUBJECT PROPERTY. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISBELIEVED THE RECEIPT OF RS .18,00,000/- FOR ANOTHER REASON ALSO. ACCORDING TO HIM THE AMOUNTS C REDITED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE DEMAND DRAFTS AND NOT CHEQUES. HOWEVE R, LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS CLEARLY STATED THAT THE PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY AS SESSEE WERE THROUGH TWO BANKERS CHEQUES WHICH BASED ON THE DRAFTS GIVEN BY SHRI ANIL SINGLA. I.T.A. NO.: 1433/KOL./2010 AS SESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 PAGE 1 TO 9 7 REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO REBUT THE FINDING OF L D. CIT(APPEALS) THAT THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PAY-IN-SLIP AS WELL AS BA NKERS LETTER SUBSTANTIATED THIS. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION THERE IS NOTHING TO DISBELIEVE THE VERSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SUM WAS RECEIVED BY IT FROM SHRI ANIL SINGLA. NEVERTHELESS AS ALREADY MENT IONED BY US ASSESSEE HAD CONVERTED THE PLOTS TO STOCK PURCHASE WITH THE INTENTION OF DOING THE BUSINESS OF SALE IN PLOTS FROM THE RELEVANT PREVIOU S YEAR. THIS BEING THE ADMITTED POSITION, WHEN THERE IS ANY SURPLUS ARISIN G ON SALE, IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAINS OR UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. IT WAS VERY MUCH BUSINESS INCOME. FUNDAMENTAL ERROR WAS COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, WH ICH WAS COMPOUNDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AND NOT CORREC TED BY LD. CIT(APPEALS) EITHER. SUCH FUNDAMENTAL ERRORS CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO SUBSIST. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ISSUE REGARDING THE TREATMENT OF SURPLUS ARISING ON SALE OF THE LEASEHO LD RIGHT IN THE PLOT BEARING NO.78, BLOCK NO. A, SECTOR-92 OF NOIDA HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AFRESH BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ORDERS OF LOWER AU THORITIES ON THIS ISSUE IS SET ASIDE AND REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSES SING OFFICER FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 10. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO. 1 OF THE REVENUE IS T REATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE MENTI ONED BY US. 11. GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUE READS AS UNDER :- THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FAC TS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.50 LAKHS AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 12. ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS BASED ON A CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY M/S. VIKU IMPEX PV T. LTD., F-23, ASHOK VIHAR, PHASE-1, DELHI-52 CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE SAID M/S. VIKU IMPEX PVT. LTD. HAD PAID THE ASSESSEE RS.50 LAKHS A GAINST SALE PRICE OF ONE PLOT. BASED ON THE COPY OF THE DEED PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE, ASSESSING I.T.A. NO.: 1433/KOL./2010 AS SESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 PAGE 1 TO 9 8 OFFICER REACHED AN OPINION THAT ASSESSEE WAS IN NO WAY ASSOCIATED WITH THE PLOT SOLD. ASSESSEE WAS NEITHER OWNER OF THE PL OT SOLD NOR IT HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE SALE OF THE PLOT EFFECTED B Y ANOTHER PERSON. THEREFORE, HE TREATED THE SUM OF RS.50 LAKHS ALLEGE D TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S. VIKU IMPEX PVT. LTD. UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND MADE THE ADDITION. 13. IN ITS APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), ARGU MENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT M/S. VIKU IMPEX PVT. LTD. HAD NEVER PAID A NY AMOUNT. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, IT HAD ON THE OTHER HAND, PAID RS.50,00,0 00/-, AS 1/4 TH SHARE OF THE TOTAL COST OF RS.2 CRORES FOR THE PLOT NO. 40, BLOCK-C, PHASE-II OF NOIDA TO THE SAID M/S. VIKU IMPEX PVT. LTD.. ASSESSEE BEI NG A DEALER OF PROPERTY, THE SUM PAID WAS ONLY TO MAKE PROFIT ON SALE OF THE PROPERTY. IT WAS PAID THROUGH BANK ACCOUNT. THERE WAS NO RECEIPT AT ALL. LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS APPRECIATIVE ON THE ABOVE CONTENTION. ACCORDING TO HIM, IT WAS THE ASSESSEE WHO HAD PAID RS.50,00,000/- BY CHEQUE BEAR ING NO. 957408 OF STANDARD CHARTERED BANK ON 19.10.2005 TO M/S. VIKU IMPEX PVT. LTD. AND THERE WAS NO RECEIPT FROM THE SAID PARTY. IN THIS V IEW OF THE MATTER HE DELETED THE ADDITION. 14. NOW BEFORE US, LD. D.R. STRONGLY ASSAILING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAD GI VEN THE RELIEF WITHOUT PROPERTY APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 15. PER CONTRA, LD. A.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) 16. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. LETTER FROM M/S. VIKU IMPEX PVT. LTD. RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REACH A CONCLUSION THAT ASSESS EE HAD RECEIVED RS.50,00,000/- FROM M/S. VIKU IMPEX PVT. LTD. WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED AT PAGE 167 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND IS REPRODUCED HEREUN DER:- VIKU IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED F-23, ASHOK VIHAR, PHASE-1, DELHI-52 I.T.A. NO.: 1433/KOL./2010 AS SESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 PAGE 1 TO 9 9 TO WHOM SO EVER IT MAY CONCERN THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT WE HAVE PURCHASED PLOT NO. 040, BLOCK C, PHASE-II, NOIDA, DIST. GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR, U.P. FOR RS.2,11,87,000 1/4 TH SHARE IN AFORESAID PLOT RELATES TO M/S. CHIRAG CREDIT CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED, 113, N.S. RO AD, KOLKATA- 1 PAYMENT OF RS.50,00,00,000/- HAS BEEN RECEIVED FR OM M/S. CHIRAG CREDIT CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED UPTO 31.03.20 06 AGAINST THEIR 1/4 TH SHARE IN THE SAID PLOT. WE ARE ASSESSED UNDER PAN AABCV 742814 OF INCOME TA X DEPTT. NEW DELHI. FOR VIKU IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED SD/- A CURSORY READING OF THE ABOVE LETTER WOULD CLEARLY SHOW THAT IT WAS ASSESSEE WHO HAD PAID RS.50 LAKHS. WE ARE OF THE OP INION THAT ASSESSING OFFICER MISUNDERSTOOD THE LETTER AND TREATED IT AS A RECEIPT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS, IN OUR OPINI ON, JUSTIFIED IN REACHING A FINDING THAT IT WAS AN AMOUNT PAID BY THE ASSESSE E AND NOT RECEIVED BY IT. SUCH RECEIPT HAS ALSO BEEN PROPERLY REFLECTED I N THE BANK STATEMENT COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE NO . 29. IN OUR OPINION, THERE IS NO REASON FOR INTERFERING WITH THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN THIS REGARD. GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUE STANDS DIS MISSED. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2014. SD/- SD/- MAHAVIR SINGH ABRAHAM P. GEORGE (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACC OUNTANT MEMBER) KOLKATA, THE 10 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2014 COPIES TO : (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ETC ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.