ANSHUL GOYAL,CHHINDWARA vs. ITO-1, , CHHINDWARA

O R D E R PER OM PRAKASH KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 29.05.2023 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] for assessment year 2013-14, raising following grounds:-

(1) “The order passed by the Ld CIT (A) is bad in law and facts, void ab initio and without jurisdiction. (2) The Ld CIT (A) erred in law and facts of the case in sustaining the addition of Rs 9,00,000 against cash refund received on cancellation of agreement.

Anshul Goyal vs ITO (3) The appellant reserves the right to add, amend or alter any grounds of appeal

.”

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration on 28.03.2014, declaring total income of Rs.6,24,526/- and agricultural income of Rs.1,14,800/-. The return of income was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued and complied with. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer (in short “AO”) noted that during the year under consideration, the assessee introduced capital receipt into his partnership firm of Rs.11,15,888/-. The assessee explained various sources of the addition including Rs. 9.00 lakhs as received as old cash advance which was given in the year 2008-09 for purchase of property. However, in the absence of evidence in support, the AO made addition for the whole of the capital receipt introduced of Rs.11,15,888/-. On further appeal, Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition except amount of Rs.9 lakhs which was explained by assessee as old cash advance for purchase of land which was received back during the year. Before Ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed agreement for cancellation of the deal however, same was not accepted in the absence of any corroborative evidences including the statement of the witnesses. The findings of Ld.CIT(A) is reproduced as under:- 2 | P a g e Anshul Goyal vs ITO 7.3.2. “An amount of Rs. 900000/- was explained to be old cash advance for purchase of land which was received back during the year. It was submitted that the assessee had entered into an agreement for purchase of land from one Shri Yogesh Trivedi and advance of Rs. 9 lakh was paid on 10.06.2008. However, the agreement was subsequently cancelled for reason stated to be that the seller could not resolve the dispute in the land and therefore it was mutually decided to cancel the deal. In this connection, the assessee submitted copy of capital a/c in his books reflecting credit of Rs 9,00,000 in cash on 10.4.2012,copy of balance sheet, Profit/ loss A/c and capital account for FY 2008-09. It was submitted that the copy of cash book for FY 2008-09.was produced for verification before AO. Copy of the cancellation deed against the earlier sale agreement was also submitted. However it is pertinent to note that the assessee could not furnish the original deed of agreement as according to him, at the time of cancellation of the agreement, the seller had taken the same and destroyed it. It is also pertinent to note that the cancellation agreement in an un-registered agreement, and does not even bear the date on which it was purportedly Further, the only possible third party signed. authentication possible is through the witnesses who purportedly signed the agreement, and who were stated to be in service with the assessee's family but they could not be produced before the A.O even during assessment proceedings as they were stated to be 'unavailable. Thus 3 | P a g e Anshul Goyal vs ITO the evidentiary value of the documents 'produced by the assessee in support of his explanation for the sources of Rs.9,00,000/- is questionable as the same are unauthenticated. The Assessing Officer had also rejected the same in view of the deficiencies in the evidence produced, and also in view of the fact that cash of Rs.9 lakh said to be given as advance 6 years earlier was purportedly returned and accepted without any interest, which is not the norm for a prudent businessman or indeed for any reasonable person. In the proceedings before me, the assessee has not produced any further substantiation or evidence to explain the above anomalies. In view of the above, the explanation given for source of Rs. 9,00,000/- is not found acceptable and the disallowance made by the A.O is sustained to this extent.” (emphasis supplied externally) 3. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced herein above.

4. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed affidavits of the two witnesses to the cancellation agreement of property and submitted that the same might be admitted as additional evidences and matter may be restored back to the file of the AO. He submitted that the assessee is willing to produce those two witnesses before the AO for examination.

Anshul Goyal vs ITO 5. Ld.Sr.DR on behalf of the Revenue on the other hand, objected for admission of the additional evidences.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 22/09/2023.