AJITSINGH MALIKSINGH RAJPAL,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(2), PUNE

This assessee’s appeal for AY 2008-09 arises against the order of the CIT(A)-4, Pune dated 17-02-2020 passed in Appeal No. CIT(A)-4/ITO,Ward.6(1),Pune/232/2012-13/626 involving proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in short the Act.

The assessee’s sole substantive grievance challenges correctness of both the lower authorities action disallowing deduction claimed of Rs.12.50 lakhs; involving alleged compensation of Rs.10.00 lakhs paid to Mr. Bijendra Tiwari and commission of Rs.2.50 lakhs; respectively, for the purpose of computation of capital gains.

Learned counsel vehemently contended that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in making the impugned twin disallowances. He invited my attention to assessee’s alleged MOU dated 12-04-2007 with Mr. Bijendra Tiwari; who inturn, has been claimed to be a consenting party having received total sum of Rs.20.00 lakhs out of which this taxpayers’ ½th share comes to Rs.10.00 lakhs in issue. I find from a perusal of the said MOU at page 11 onwards that the same was an unregistered document involving cash payment of Rs.11,000/- only without any registration of proof of genuineness; as the case may be. I therefore affirm the learned lower authorities action in making the impugned disallowance of Rs.10.00 lakhs on account of the assessee’s failure to prove genuineness in proving the alleged MOU.

Coming to the latter head of commission and brokerage disallowance of Rs.2.50 lakhs, I find force in assessee’s arguments as such kind of charges are in the nature of routine expenses in immovable property transactions. The assessee has already substantiated it by leading the necessary evidence. This latter disallowance accordingly stands deleted.

The assessee’s delay of 156 day in filing the instant appeal is condoned since falling in Covid-19 outbreak period from March, 2020 till the date of institution;

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms.