SUNITA AGARWAL,CUTTACK vs. ITO, WARD-1(1),CUTTACK, CUTTACK

Shri Mohit Sheth, Mohit Sheth, ld AR appeared for the assessee. Shri the assessee. Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR , ld Sr DR represented on behalf of the revenue. represented on behalf of the revenue.

The assessee has filed written submissio ssessee has filed written submission, as follow , as follow:

ld AR has also filed balance sheet of the four purchasers as follows:

It was the submission that the assessee alongwith four co-owners has purchased the property for Rs.1,71,60,080/- which included cost of the property as also the registration charges of Rs.11,60,080/- . It was the submission that the Assessing Officer, in the course of assessment proceedings, held that there is no debit transaction of Rs.11,60,080/- in the account of any of the four purchasers maintained singly or jointly for P a g e 7 | 9 payment of stamp duty and consequently held that Rs.11,60,080/- paid by Shri Manish Agarwal remained unexplained. The Assessing Officer, consequently turn around and made the addition in the hands of the assessee, being Smt. Sunita Agarwal. It was the submission that the cost of the property including the registration charges of Rs.1,71,16,080/- , each of the purchaser had disclosed equal share of Rs.42,90,020/- in their balance sheet. It was the submission that the balance sheet and bank account of each of the co-owners had been produced before the Assessing Officer and the same is also recognized in para 3.3 of the assessment order. It was the submission that when entire amount had been disclosed, no addition in the hands of Smt. Sunita Agarwal, the assessee was called for insofar as the entire investment has been disclosed in her books in respect of her share. It was the submission that this amount of Rs.11,60,080/- representing the stamp duty and registration charges was paid in cash by each of four co-owners. It was the submission that the amount had been withdrawn from their bank account.

In reply, ld Sr DR vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer and ld CIT(A). It was the submission that the assessee has not produced the evidence before the ld CIT(A).

I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the balance sheet of four co-owners clearly shows that the amount of Rs.42,90,020/- has been clearly disclosed in the balance sheet as on 31.3.2016. A perusal P a g e 8 | 9 of the assessment order at page 3 para 3.3 shows that the Assessing Officer has questioned the transaction in respect of Manish Agrawal but has turn around and made the addition in the hands of the assessee being Sunita Agarwal. The fact that four co-owners have disclosed the transaction in their balance sheet and the fact that the assessee do have adequate funds for making this investment and the assessee has also explained the source of the said funds for making the investment, the addition as made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld CIT(A) stands deleted.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed.