ABHAY VRUNDAVANDAS DEVI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and deserves to be quashed, erroneous and contrary to the provisions of law and facts and therefore requires to be suitably modified. It is submitted that it be so held now.

1 The Id. CIT(A) has erred in passing the order without providing opportunity of hearing and there is violation of natural justice and therefore thee order passed be held to be bad in law. It is submitted that it be so held now.

The order passed by the Ld CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- made by the Ld. AO as 2

1 The Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the facts that learned A.O. has made addition without providing any corroborative evidence and in relying on the third-party statement behind the back of the appellant.

2 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in summarily manner rejecting the contention of the appellant that Ld. A.O. has made addition without providing opportunity of cross examination of the person whose statement has been relied upon. It be so held now.

3 The Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the facts that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no payment cash and the addition made merely on assumption and presumption deserves to be deleted. It be so held now.

4 The Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the facts that booking of the flat was done by appellant much after the search carried out on developer and therefore the addition is complexly baseless and lack substance and deserves to be deleted. It be so held now.

5 The Ld. CIT(A) while adjudicating the issue of addition has relied on the decisions which would not be applicable to the facts of the appellant.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in charging interest under section 234B of Rs. 2,33,604/- and Rs. 56/- under section 234D of the Income Tax Act. It is submitted that it be so held now.”

Brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure action was carried out in the case of Dev Group which is engaged in the business of builders/real-estate developers. Pursuant to the said search action, the said developer approached the Settlement Commission, wherein, he offered Rs.80 crores, admitted to have been received as on-money from the various customers on account of booking/sale of flats etc.

Before this Tribunal, the ld.AR of the assessee has demonstrated that only amount paid by the assessee for the booking of the flat with the said builder was Rs.20.00 lakhs paid on 13.5.2014 which was after the date of search action on 3.1.2013. Even the said booking/ sale agreement was cancelled and the said amount was refunded by the builder to the assessee vide two cheque of Rs.10 lakhs each, dated 5.4.2021 and 9.4.2021. Since, in this case, the assessee had booked the flat after the date of search action, therefore, it is apparent that the amount offered by the builder on account of on-money received before the date of search action or found during the course of search action cannot be related to the assessee, as the assessee, for the first time, booked the flat after the search action.

In view of this, the impugned addition is not sustainable, and same is ordered to be deleted.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.