AMRIK SINGH,BULANDSHAHR vs. ITO WARD 2(3)(1), BULANDSHAHR

It transpires during the course of hearing that the assessee’s identical sole substantive ground raised

1. in the instant three appeals seeks to reverse both the learned lower authorities’ action treating his alleged cash loans of Rs.25.40 lakhs each, as unexplained money under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act in the instant as many assessments as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

4. We find no merit in the Revenue’s stand seeking to confirm the impugned identical addition. This is for the precise reason that going by the learned criminal court’s proceedings involving section 2 | P a g e 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (pages 36 to 38), we notice that there was a development agreement between the assessee and the developers concerned which involved the impugned amount in question going by the letter dated 18.08.2012 admittedly not falling in any of the three assessment years 2014-15, 2016-17 and 2017- 18 herein. This clinching factual position has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side. This is indeed coupled with yet another fact that the impugned sum was more in the nature of damages as awardable to the assessee in case of non-fulfillment of the development agreement than cash loans advanced. We thus conclude in this factual backdrop that both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings adding the impugned cash loans as well as the interest accrued/arising thereupon deserve to be deleted. We order accordingly.