ITO 19(3)(2), MUMBAI V. JAGJITPAUL SINGH AHLUWALIA, MUMBAI

ITA 4349/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 434919914 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 20-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AKHILENDRA P YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: STANY SALDANHA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 68; 133(6)

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH J, MUMBAI , ! ! ! ! '' , # BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO.4349/M/2011 ( & ' & ' & ' & ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR; 2006-07) ITO 19(3)(2), ROOM NO.306, 3 RD FLOOR, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, PAREL, LALBAUG, MUMBAI 400 012 & & & & / VS. JAGJITPAUL SINGH AHLUWALIA, 301, MONREPOSE, BANDSTAND CORNER BANDERA (WEST), MUMBAI 400 050 PAN: AACPA0402A ( () / APPELLANT) ( *+() / RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NO.4207/M/2011 ( & ' & ' & ' & ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR; 2006-07) JAGJITPAUL SINGH AHLUWALIA, 301, MONREPOSE, BANDSTAND CORNER BANDERA (WEST), MUMBAI 400 050 PAN: AACPA0402A & & & & / VS. ITO 19(3)(2), ROOM NO.306, 3 RD FLOOR, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, PAREL, LALBAUG, MUMBAI 400 012 ( () / APPELLANT) ( *+() / RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI STANY SALDANHA REVENUE BY : SHRI AKHILENDRA P. YADAV & , -. / DATE OF HEARING : 18.11.2014 /0' , -. / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.01.2015 1 / O R D E R PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ABOVE TITLED CROSS APPEALS, ONE BY THE ASSESSE E AND THE OTHER BY THE REVENUE HAVE BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.3.2011 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [HEREIN FURTHER REFERRED TO ITA NO.4349 &4207/M/2011 J.S. AHLUWALIA 2 AS CIT(A)]. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IN HIS RETU RN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.5,00,000/- U NDER THE HEAD 'DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS OF PROPERTY OF KRISHNA NAGAR'. EXEMPTION U/S. 54E WAS CLAIMED ON INVESTMENT OF RS.7,50,000/- IN RURAL ELE CTRIFICATION BONDS. ON PERUSAL OF THE BALANCE SHEET WITH THE RETURN OF INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE A O) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN AN AMOUNT OF RS.66,22,000/- AS LIABILITY UNDER THE HEAD 'ADVANCE FOR PROPERTY AT KRISHNA NAGAR, DELHI'. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN CAPITAL GAIN AT NIL IN THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL I NCOME. ON BEING ASKED TO EXPLAIN IN THIS RESPECT, THE ASSESSEE PLEADED BEFOR E THE AO THAT A PLOT OF LAND WAS PURCHASED BY THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE IN 1947 . HE DIED IN 1975 AND THE PROPERTY DEVOLVED ON THE ASSESSEE AND HIS TWO BROTH ERS. THE DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACQUIRED THE SAID PLOT OF LAN D IN 1979 WHICH WAS CHALLENGED IN THE COURT AND THE PROPERTY WAS IN DIS PUTE. SUBSEQUENTLY, A DISPUTE AROSE WITH HIS COUSIN BROTHER, PROPRIETOR O F M/S. AHLUWALIA CONSTRUCTION. IN THE MEANTIME A PURCHASER APPROACHE D THE THREE BROTHERS FOR BUYING THE PROPERTY WHICH THE THREE BROTHERS READIL Y AGREED FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS.3.44 CRORES. AN AGREEMENT DATED 18.02.2005 WA S ENTERED INTO AS PER WHICH THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED RS.23,20,000/- IN F.Y. 2004-05 AND RS.43,02,000/- IN F.Y. 2005-06 BEING HIS 1/3 RD SHARE WHICH WAS APPEARING AS ADVANCE OF RS.66,22,000/- AS ON 31.03.2006 IN BALANCE SHEET. D ELHI POLICE HAD ALSO LODGED A CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST THE THREE BROTHERS ON 21.10 .2005 AND IF THE THREE BROTHERS LOSE THE CASE IN COURT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO REFUND THE MONEY WITH INTEREST AND HENCE THERE WAS NO SALE AND THE AMOUNT OF RS.66,22,000/- WAS SHOWN AS LIABILITY. 3. THE AO SOUGHT INFORMATION U/S.133(6) FROM THE TH REE PURCHASERS VIZ. ITA NO.4349 &4207/M/2011 J.S. AHLUWALIA 3 R.K. AGRAWAL, SIDDHART GOEL AND RAM KARAN SHARMA. I N RESPONSE TO LETTER U/S.133(6) ISSUED BY AO, THE PURCHASER OF LAND SHRI RAM KARAN SHARMA PROVIDED THE INFORMATION VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 29/1 0/2008 AS REPRODUCED ON PAGE 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS UNDER :- '(A) THAT THE AGREEMENT DT. 18-02-2005 FOR PURCHASE OF L AND MEASURING 5 BIGHAS AND 2 BISWAS, IN KASARA NO. 42/2 AND 48/4, SITUATED IN KRISHAN NAGAR, HUMAYANPUR DELHI WAS TERMINATED BY B OTH THE PARTIES. (B) THAT THE AGREEMENT DATED 18-02-2005 WAS NULL AN D VOID AND THE SAME WAS NEVER ACTED UPON SO NO SALE DEED WAS MADE ON THE BA SIS OF THAT AGREEMENT. (C) THAT A NEW AGREEMENT ACCORDING TO SETTLEMENT W AS EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PRITHIPAL SINGH, JAGJIT PAL SINGH AND SH. BHUPINDER PAL SINGH PARTY NO. 1 AND RAM KARAN SHARMA AND RANBIR SINGH PARTY NO. 2 T O PURCHASE THE LAND MEASURING 578 SQ. YARDS OUT OF THE LAND MEASURING 5 BIGHA 2 BISWAS OF KHASARA NO. 42/2 SITUATED IN KRISHNA NAGAR, HUMAYAN PUR ,DELHI FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 9 LAC. THE PAYMENT WAS MADE BY US THROUGH CHEQUES FROM THE ICICI BANK ROHTAK ALREADY. (D) THAT THE 1 ST PARTY HAVE SOLD THEIR WHOLE REMAINING SHARE OF LAND ON 16-09- 05 THROUGH DIFFERENT SALE DEEDS TO OTHER PERSONS. I HAVE ONLY CONCERNED WITH THIS PROPERTY UPTO 578 SQ. YARDS THROUGH SALE DEED NO.27036 DT. 16-09-2005. (E) THAT THE 1ST PARTY HAS REFUNDED AMOUNT RECEIVED IN CONNECTION WI TH THE EARLIER AGREEMENT OTHER THAN AN AMOUNT OF RS.4. 5 IAKHS WHICH IS PENDING WITH THE FIRST PARTY TILL TODAY. 4. FURTHER, VIDE LETTER DATED 31.10.2008 ANOTHER P URCHASER SHRI SIDDHANT GOEL STATED THAT THE FIRST AGREEMENT HAD BECOME NUL L AND VOID AND EXCEPT FOR A PAYMENT OF RS.4.5 LAKHS, THE FIRST PARTY HAD RETURN ED BACK THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION AND THAT HE HAD PURCHASED ANOTHER 578 SQ. YARDS OF LAND FOR AN IDENTICAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.9,00,000/- ALONG WITH SHRI. KULDEEP DAHIYA. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLIES FILED BY THE PURCHASE RS, THE AO OBSERVED THAT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED ABOUT THE TERMINATION OF FIRST AGREEMENT AND SUBSEQUENT TRANSACTION ENTERED FOR SALE OF LAND WITH THE SAME PURCHASERS AND THEIR NOMINEES WITHIN FEW MONTH S OF THE SIGNING OF FIRST AGREEMENT IN THE SAME FINANCIAL YEAR. DURING THE CO URSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED TH ESE FACTS. HE CONCLUDED THAT ITA NO.4349 &4207/M/2011 J.S. AHLUWALIA 4 TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT DATED 18.02.2005 AND NEW A GREEMENT CAME TO LIGHT ONLY BECAUSE OF ENQUIRIES CONDUCTED. HE OBSERVED TH AT THE LAND HAD BEEN GROSSLY UNDERVALUED IN THE SUBSEQUENT SALE AND THAT THOSE WERE NON GENUINE TRANSACTIONS WITH THE SOLE PURPOSE OF TAX EVASION. THE AO DETERMINED MARKET VALUE OF PLOT AS PER ORIGINAL AGREEMENT DATED 18.2. 2005 AT RS.3.44 CRORES AND COMPUTED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.1,13,62,296/- OF THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT SIDDHARTH GOEL AND RAM KARAN SHARMA HAD STATED THAT MOST OF THE ADVANCES WERE RETURNED. THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT OF RS.66,22,000/- WAS NOT EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE ADDED RS. 66, 22,000/- U/S.68 OF THE ACT TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEF ORE THE CIT(A). 5. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS 1/3 RD OWNER OF THE LAND AT KRISHNA NAGAR, VILLAGE HUMAYUNPUR, DELHI. IN THE YEAR 1969, DDA IS SUED NOTIFICATION TO ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY. HOWEVER, THE AWARD FOR COMPEN SATION WAS FINALIZED IN 1979. THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HIS BROTHERS HAD FILE D CASES WITH THE RESPECTIVE AUTHORITY/HIGH COURT DISPUTING THEIR ACQ UISITION. THE AWARDS HAD GONE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN EARLIER YEARS AND COUR T CASES WERE PENDING BEFORE THE HIGH COURT PRIOR TO 2005. IN THE MEANTI ME THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HIS BROTHERS RECEIVED AN ADVANCE FROM M/S. AHL UWALIA CONSTRUCTIONS TOWARDS DEVELOPMENT OF THE SAID PROPERTY. IN OR ARO UND 2005 THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HIS BROTHERS FOUND A BUYER AND A MOU WAS DRAWN FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.3.44 CRORES. THE MOU STATED THA T LIABILITIES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.30 LACS HAD TO BE PAID TO M/S. AHLUWAL IA CONSTRUCTIONS FOR OBTAINING AN NOC AND A LUMP SUM PAYMENT TOWARDS BRO KERAGE. THE ADVERSE COURT ORDER HAD BEEN RECEIVED ON AUGUST 200 5 AND HENCE THE BUYERS REFUSED TO HONOUR THE MOU AND BUY THE PROPERTY AND BACKED OUT OF THE SAID MOU. THE ASSESSEE AND HIS BROTHERS, FEARING THAT TH E SAID PROPERTY WOULD ITA NO.4349 &4207/M/2011 J.S. AHLUWALIA 5 NOT GET A BUYER CONSIDERING THAT THE PROPERTY WAS I N DISPUTE WITH DDA AND WITH AN ADVERSE COURT DECREE AGAINST IT, DECIDED TO RENEGOTIATE WITH THE BUYER WHO AGREED TO PURCHASE THE SAME FOR A TOTAL C ONSIDERATION OF RS.79,45,750/- ON AN AS IS WHERE IS BASIS. THIS AMO UNT WAS SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER THAN THAT BEING AWARDED BY DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. FURTHER, AROUND THE SAME TIME IN AUGUST 2005 A PERSON BY THE NAME OF CHATTER SINGH RESIDENT OF HN 71, VILLAGE HUMAYUNPUR, NEW DE LHI CLAIMED OWNERSHIP TO THE SAID PROPERTY WHICH HAD BEEN REFUT ED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SAID PERSON FILED A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT WITH THE SAR OJI NAGAR POLICE STATION SEEKING OWNERSHIP OF THE SAID PROPERTY. IN VIEW OF ALL THE ABOVE DISPUTE, THE ASSESSEE TO AVOID UNNECESSARY LITIGATION AND MENTAL AGONY DECIDED TO DISPOSE OFF THE PROPERTY AS A DISTRESS SALE TO BUY PEACE OF MIND WHICH WAS MORE IMPORTANT TO THE ASSESSEE AND HIS BROTHERS WHO ARE ALL WERE OVER THE AGE OF 70 YEARS. HENCE, AGREEMENTS WERE ENTERED INT O WITH THE SIGNATORIES OF THE MOU AND/OR THEIR NOMINEES ON 16.09.2005 FOR PLOT OF SMALLER SIZES EACH FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.79,45,750/- I N TWELVE AGREEMENTS. THE STAMP DUTY WAS ALSO DULY PAID ON THESE AGREEMENTS A ND THE SAME WERE DULY REGISTERED. THE EARLIER MOU WAS A DOCUMENT OF AN IN TENTION TO PURCHASE/SELL ON WHICH NO STAMP DUTY PAID NOR WAS T HE SAME REGISTERED. THE ABOVE FACTS HAD BEEN REITERATED BY THE BUYERS I N REPLY TO NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ISSUED BY THE LD . AO. IT HAD BEEN FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE MOU DATED 18.02.2005 WAS NULL AND VOID AND HENCE THE QUESTION OF ANY RECEIPTS BASED ON SUCH MO U DID NOT ARISE. THE ASSESSEE WAS READY TO OFFER FOR TAXATION HIS 1/3 RD SHARE OUT OF THE FRESH RENEGOTIATED AGREED VALUE OF RS.9,45,750/- WHICH CA ME OUT TO RS.26,48,583/- AND THE CAPITAL GAIN COULD BE WORKED ACCORDINGLY. IT HAD BEEN FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DI D NOT COMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAINS ON THE GENUINE BELIEF THAT THE PROPE RTY BEING IN DISPUTE HE ITA NO.4349 &4207/M/2011 J.S. AHLUWALIA 6 WOULD HAVE TO REFUND THE AMOUNT IF THE COURT DECIDE S OTHERWISE AND ALSO FOR THE FACT THAT THERE WERE VARIOUS COMPLAINTS AND CRO SS COMPLAINTS AND SUCH OTHER CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS FOR AND AGAINST THE PROPE RTY. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE AS SESSEE'S REPRESENTATIVE, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT IT WA S A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO MOU FOR SALE OF LAND AT KRISHNA NA GAR ALONG WITH HIS TWO BROTHERS HOLDING 1/3 RD SHARE EACH. IT WAS ALSO A FACT THAT LAND HAD BEEN ACQUIRED BY DDA BY ISSUING NOTIFICATION. FURTHER AS SESSEE HAD FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE HIGH COURT DISPUTING THE ACQUISITIONS. T HE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE CASE BEFORE THE COURT BEFORE ENTERING INTO MOU ON 1 8 TH FEBRUARY, 2005. HOWEVER, THE HIGH COURT ORDER ON AUGUST 2005 WAS AG AINST THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALSO A FACT THAT THE MOU WAS CANCELLED AND THE SAME HAD BEEN REITERATED BY THE PURCHASERS. A NEW REGISTERED SAL E DEED AS A DISTRESS SALE WAS ENTERED INTO ON 16.09.2005 FOR SMALLER PLOTS AG GREGATING TO THE TOTAL AREA FOR A SUM OF RS.79,45,750/- AND THE SAME HAD B EEN REGISTERED WITH THE LAND AUTHORITY. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE SALE A T LOWER PRICE WAS NECESSITATED AS NO OTHER PERSON WAS WILLING TO RISK TO PURCHASE THE DISPUTED PROPERTY. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT A REGISTERED SAL E DOCUMENT WAS THE MOST IMPORTANT DOCUMENT IN MATTER OF DISPUTE WHEREAS THE MOU DT.18.02.2005 WAS NOT A REGISTERED DOCUMENT. THAT STAMP DUTY HAD BEEN PAID AS PER SALE CONSIDERATION AS MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED. NO HIG HER VALUE HAD BEEN DETERMINED BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR, NEW DELHI. HE THER EFORE HELD THAT THE AO HAD WRONGLY TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF A NULL AND VOID MOU DATED 18.02.2005 AND THUS DIRECTED HIM TO RECOMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAIN S ON SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.79,45,750/- INSTEAD OF RS.3.44 CRORES ON THE BASIS OF REGISTERED SALE DEEDS. SO FAR SO ADDITION OF RS.66,22,000/- MADE BY THE AO AS AN UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT WAS CONCERNED, HE OBSERVED THAT NO PROOF HAD BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE CONTENTION THAT RS.66,22,000/- WAS A ITA NO.4349 &4207/M/2011 J.S. AHLUWALIA 7 PART OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.79,75,450/-. HENCE , RS.66,22,000/- COULD NOT BE TREATED AS PART OF SALE CONSIDERATION. HE, H OWEVER, HELD THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.66,22,000/-, AN AMOUNT OF R S.23,20,000/- PERTAINED TO A.Y. 2005-06 AS THE SAME WAS RECEIVED IN THE PRE VIOUS YEAR 2004-05. HE OBSERVED THAT THE AO HAD ADDED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.66,22,000/- U/S.68 OF THE I.T. ACT, BUT ONLY THAT AMOUNT COULD HAVE BE EN ADDED U/S.68 FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07 WHICH WAS INTRODUCED IN THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT WAS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT RS.43,02,000/- HAD BEEN RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, ADDITION OF RS.66,22,000/- WAS RESTRICTED BY HIM TO RS.43,02,00 0/-. 7. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE A SSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THE APPEAL BEFORE US AGITATING THE CONFIRMATIONS OF ADDITIONS OF RS.43,02,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT, WHEREAS THE REVENUE HAS COME IN APPEAL AGAINST THE DIRECTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO COMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.79,45,750/- AS AG AINST THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.3.44 CRORES COMPUTED BY THE AO. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND AL SO GONE THROUGH THE RECORD. IT IS REVEALED FROM THE FACTS ON THE FILE T HAT AT THE TIME OF EXECUTION OF FIRST AGREEMENT DATED 18.2.2005, THERE WAS AN IN TERIM INJUNCTION ORDER PASSED BY THE COURT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWE VER, THE SUIT WAS ULTIMATELY DISMISSED BY THE COURT AND THUS STAY WAS VACATED. AFTER AN ADVERSE ORDER AGAINST THE ASSESSEE RELATING TO THE OWNERSHIP AND DOMAIN OF THE ASSESSEE OVER THE PROPERTY, IT APPEARS QUITE PR OBABLE THAT THE INTENDING PURCHASERS WOULD HAVE BACKED OUT OF THEIR COMMITMEN T. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT OWING THE ABOVE DEVELOPED CIRCUMSTANCES AND A LSO IN VIEW OF HIS OLD AGE, THE ASSESSEE DECIDED TO SELL THE PROPERTY AT A LOWE R PRICE, WHICH HOWEVER, WAS MORE THAN THE PRICE TO BE PAID TO HIM BY DDA. SUBSE QUENT SALES WERE MADE ITA NO.4349 &4207/M/2011 J.S. AHLUWALIA 8 THROUGH REGISTERED SALE DEEDS AND STAMP DUTY WAS PA ID. THERE WAS NO HIGHER ASSESSMENT OF STAMP DUTY ON SALE CONSIDERATION BY T HE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITIES. EXCEPT THE FIRST MOU DATED 18.2.2005, WHICH WAS NOT ACTED UPON BY THE PARTIES, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON THE FILE WHICH SHOWS THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED THE SALE CONSIDERATION AS PER MOU DATED 18.2.2005 OR IN EXCESS OF THAT WAS MENTIONED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEEDS. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO HAD CONCEALED THE FACT OF SUBSEQUENT SALE DEEDS AND HAD SHOWN THE RECEIPTS ON ACCOUNT OF FIRST AGREEMENT AS LIABILITIES, BUT THAT ITSELF IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO HOLD THAT THE FIRST AGREEMENT WAS ACTUALLY ACTED UPON OR THAT THE SUBSEQUENT SALES WERE NOT GENUINE. WE THEREFORE DO NOT FIND ANY INF IRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN THIS RESPECT. 9. SO FAR SO, THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE ADDITION M ADE U/S 68 IS CONCERNED, WE MAY NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF IN HIS RETURN HAD SHOWN THE RECEIPT OF RS.66,22,000/- AS LIABILITY. EVEN ON ENQUIRY BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT STATE THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS RETURNED OR ADJUSTED AGAIN ST THE SALE CONSIDERATIONS MADE SUBSEQUENTLY. EVEN NO EVIDENCE HAD BEEN PRODUC ED IN THIS RESPECT. EVEN VIDE LETTER DATED 11.7. 2008, THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBM ITTED BEFORE THE AO THAT IF HE LOSES THE CASE, HE WOULD HAVE TO REFUND THE MONEY W ITH INTEREST. HENCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ONLY SHOWN THE RECEIPT OF THE AMOU NT OF RS.66,22,000/- IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME BUT ALSO HAD REITERATED HIS STAND DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. EVEN THE ASSESSEE HAD TRIED TO CONCEAL THE SUBSEQUENT SALE OF THE PROPERTY. THE PURCHASERS HAD CLAIMED THAT THE ORIGI NAL AGREEMENT WAS CANCELLED AND THE AMOUNT RECEIVED AS ADVANCE WAS RETURNED EXC EPT AN AMOUNT OF RS.4.5 LAKHS, OUT OF WHICH, THE ASSESSEES LIABILITY CAME OUT TO BE RS.1.5 LAKHS ONLY BEING HIS 1/3 RD SHARE. THUS THE REMAINING AMOUNT MINUS 1.5 LAKHS O UT OF RS.66,22,000/- BECAME UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT IN TH E HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.43,02,000/- ON THE BASIS OF AMOUNT RECEIVED DURI NG THE YEAR UNDER ITA NO.4349 &4207/M/2011 J.S. AHLUWALIA 9 CONSIDERATION. WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON WHICH MAY JUSTIFY THE DELETION OF THE ABOVE ADDITION. THE ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT IS THE REFORE CONFIRMED. 10. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS OF THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09.01.2015. 1 , /0' 2 3&4 09 .01.2015 0 , ' SD/- SD/- ( / RAJENDRA) ( '' / SANJAY GARG) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER /MUMBAI ; 3& / DATED 09 .01.2015 * PATEL 1 , *-7 87'- 1 , *-7 87'- 1 , *-7 87'- 1 , *-7 87'-/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. () / THE APPELLANT 2. *+() / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 9 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. 9 / CIT 5. 7<' *-& , , / THE DR CONCERNED BENCH, 6. '= > / GUARD FILE. 1& 1& 1& 1& / BY ORDER, +7- *- //TRUE COPY// ? ?? ?/ // /@ @ @ @ ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, MUMBAI