MANGLAM ENTERPRISES ,MUMBAI vs. ITO 4(1), MUMBAI

After having heard the counsels for both the parties, we found that in fact loan was taken during A.Y 2016-17 thus no addition could have been made in the year under consideration i.e A.Y 2015-16 and in this regard we rely upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of Prashant Rameshchandra Samdani Vs. ACIT, in ITA No. 2321/Mum/2021, wherein it has been held that 3 Manglam Enterprises ‘the year under consideration AY 2015-16 and hence the addition made in the current year is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Reliance in placed on the the judgement of Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Prashant Rameshchandra Samdani v. ACIT vide ITA No.2321/Mum/2021 wherein it was held that "On basis of statement of N, sales head of Sunshine group, that assessee had paid certain sum in cash for purchase of a property from T, assessee's case was reopened and Assessing Officer proceeded to hold that assessee paid on money (difference between agreement value and market value) to builders which was added to income of assessee being unexplained expenditure under section 69C - It was noted that sale consideration paid by assessee was more than market value of said property Whether since assessee's transaction vide sale agreement dated 13-8-2012 did not fall during year under consideration nor assessee had entered into any agreement with Sunshine group, rather purchased property by virtue of agreement entered into with T, reopening was not sustainable in eyes of law being based upon in correct facts.

Therefore considering the above circumstances we direct the AO to delete the addition in the year under consideration. 6. Other addition of Rs. 6,10,000/- was on account of the fact that assessee had received the said amount from 4 Manglam Enterprises Maya Singh and Gurdeep Singh on account of sale of property bearing Flat No. 101, Gokul Grand 1, Sundaram School Village, Palghar (W), having survey No. 827/3 and the said payment has been made through banking channels against which the assessee had acknowledg the receipt of the payment. In lieu of the said amount the property has been allotted to the said purchaser vide letter of allotment dated 27.10.2024 which is paper book 21 to 22. Since Maya Singh could not pay further therefore final transfer could not take place. Hence the said property has been kept on hold. In these circumstances the said amount is shown as advances in the books of accounts. Hence in our view the amount which has been received by the assessee has been duly accounted for in the books of the assessee therefore no addition could have been made u/s 69A of the Act. Thus we direct the AO to delete the same.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed.