Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “B” BENCH: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
Year : 2012-13] DCIT, vs Parveen Aggarwal, Central Circle-14, MA-1/7, 3D, Garden New Delhi Estate, M.G.Road, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002. PAN-AAHPA0660R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by Shri K.Sampath, Adv. & Shri V.Rajkumar, Adv. Revenue by Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT DR Date of Hearing 29.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 24.10.2025 ORDER
PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM :
The captioned cross-appeals are filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)- 27, New Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 28.11.2022 in Appeal No. CIT(A), Delhi-27/10482/2019-20 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising from the assessment order dt. 31.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 30.09.2012, declaring total income of INR 77,69,650/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act on 31.03.2015 at an income of INR 86,82,143/-. Thereafter, based on the information received from ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi from the AO of assessee’s wife that she alongwith assessee had maintained a joint bank account wherein entries appearing relates to the assessee and it was stated by her that nature of these entries could be explained by the assessee only. Based on such information, AO recorded his satisfaction of escapement of income by recording the reasons on 29.03.2019 and re-opened the assessment of assessee by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act. The assessee objected to the re-opening of assessment however, such objections were not accepted by the lower authorities and reassessment order was passed on 31.12.2019 wherein addition of INR 10.80 crores was made on account of the credit entries appearing in the bank account jointly maintained by the assessee with her wife Smt. Anju Agarwal. Before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed submissions wherein explanation was given with respect to each credit entry appearing in the said bank account. It is further observed that out of total credits of INR 11,44,53,340/-, explanation to the extent of credits of INR 63,96,000/- were accepted by the AO and addition was made of the balance credits of INR 10.80 crores. Ld. CIT(A) in para 5.5 of his order discussed each individual entry appearing in the bank account and after considering the explanation tendered by assessee and the nature of entries explained, confirmed the additions to the extent of INR 1,30,24,681/- and balance addition of INR 9,49,75,319/- was deleted.
Against the said order, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal wherein Revenue has challenged the deletion of additions by taking the following grounds of appeal:- (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition of Rs.9,49,75,319/- by allowing the additional evidences submitted by the assessee despite the fact that the assessee did not produce these evidences during the course of assessment proceedings despite providing various opportunities to the assessee. (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) is correct in ignoring the fact that the assessee has shown sale consideration of Rs.3,88,98,500/- in its return of income whereas as by per various sale deeds submitted before CIT(A), sale consideration received is Rs.7,26,19,223/- and the difference is not reconciled before AO as well as CIT(A). (iii)(a) Whether on law and facts of the case the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts. (b) The appellant craves leave to add, amend any/all the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal.”
4. The assessee is also in appeal wherein the assessee has challenged the re-opening of the assessment as well as addition of INR 1,30,24,681/- confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A). The following grounds raised by the assessee are as under:- 1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A)-27, New Delhi erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in- i. initiating the proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act without there being any valid reason leading the belief of escapement of income: ii. confirming the additions made to the returned income on account of credit entries in the bank account to the extent of Rs.1,30,24,681/-Treating the same as unexplained.
The above actions being arbitrary, fallacious, unwarranted and illegal must be quashed with directions for appropriate relief.”
First, we take the assessee’s appeal for adjudication wherein Ground of appeal No.1 is against the invocation of provision of section 147 of the Act.
6. Before us, Ld. AR submits that assessment was already completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act on 30.03.2015 wherein during the course of assessment proceedings, AO has examined all the details filed by the assessee. The bank account in question jointly held by the assessee with his wife Smt. Anju Agarwal was part of the assessee’s books of accounts and therefore, the entries contained therein were also part of the examination done by the AO who preferred not to make any further inquiries/investigations in this regard and accepted the transactions as valid and disclosed transactions.
Ld. AR further submits that in the reasons recorded, AO observed that bank account was never examined in the course of assessment proceedings which fact is not correct as the said account has already been considered in the assessment order passed by the assessee. He further submits that no fresh material was brought on record and the deposits made in the bank account represents the sale consideration for which capital gain declared was already considered and assessed in the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act and no tangible material was brought on record before initiation of proceedings u/s 148 of the Act. Ld.AR drew our attention to the computation of income of the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act wherein AO observed itself has accepted the capital gain declared at INR 59,96,800/-. This clearly shows that AO has already examined all the entries with respect to the sale consideration credited in the joint bank account. Ld. AR thus, submits that re-opening of assessment based on assumption and presumptions and merely change of opinion which deserves to be hold bad in law.
On the other hand, Ld. CIT DR vehemently supported the order of Ld. CIT(A) and submits that Ld. CIT(A) in para 4.12 to 4.25 has made a detailed discussion in this regard and stated that from the perusal of assessment order, it was observed by the AO that no inquiry whatsoever was carried out with respect to the entries appearing in the joint bank account of the assessee and, therefore, there was sufficient reasons to arrive at the conclusion that there is some income which has escaped assessment. She thus prayed for the confirmation of the order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the re-opening of the assessment.
Heard the contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. From the perusal of the orders of lower authorities, we find that in the reasons recorded, AO has clearly observed that entries contained in the bank account were not examined during the course of assessment proceedings completed u/s 153C of the Act where the assessment was confined only to the seized material found during the course of search. In this regard, the observations made by Ld. CIT(A) as contained in para 4.2 to 4.5 of the order reads as under:-
4.2. “On perusal of reasons recorded by the AO for reopening of case, it is noted as under: i. During the course of asstt. proceedings in the case of Mrs. Anju Aggrawal (wife of the appellant) the Assessing Officer ITO, Ward-70(5), Delhi found that there were several credit entries more than Rs. 1 Crore in Union Bank of India joint saving bank account. Mrs. Anju Aggrawal stated that said bank account was a joint bank account with her husband and only her husband Mr. Parveen Aggarwal can explain the credit entries. ii. This information was forwarded to the AO ie. ACIT, CC-14, Delhi by the ACIT, CC-30, Delhi vide letter dated 16.03.2019. iii. Upon receipt of information, the AO in order to make enquiry issued-notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to the appellant. iv. In response, the appellant vide reply dated 29.03.2019 through e-mail stated that the credit entries in saving bank account pertains to property advance/sale proceeds/ refund, investment and fund transfer from his proprietorship concern. v. However, the appellant only submitted copy of bank statements without any supporting documentary evidence. vi. Thereafter, the AO recorded reasons for reopening of the case. vii. The AO in reasons has mentioned that assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was made in this case on 30.03.2015 and issue under consideration were never examined during the course of assessment and this fact has been corroborated by the AO from the contents of notices u/s 142(1) issued and order sheet entries. viii. Further, the AO has discussed in detail on applicability of provisions of section 147 of the Act and on issue of change of opinion. 4.3 The relevant part of reasons recorded by the AO is reproduced here as under. "7.Applicability of the provisions of section 147 to the facts of the case: In this case a return of income was filed for the year under consideration and regular assessment u/s 143(3) was made on 30.03.2015. Since, 4 years from the end of the relevant year has expired in this case, the requirements to initiate proceedings u/s 147 of the Act are reason to believe that income for the Year under consideration has escaped assessment because of failure on the part of the assessee to discuss fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment for the assessment year under consideration. It is pertinent to mention here that reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment for the year under consideration have been recorded above [refer paragraphs-6]. I have carefully considered the assessment records containing the submissions mode by the assessee in response to various notices issued during the assessment/reassessment proceedings and have noted that the assessee has not fully and truly disclosed the following material facts necessary for his assessment for the year under consideration. It is evident from the above facts that the assessee has not truly and fully disclosed material facts necessary for his assessment for the year under consideration thereby necessitating reopening u/s 147 of the Act. It is true that the assessee has filed audited P&L A/c and balance sheet along with return of income where various information/material were disclosed. However, the requisite full and true disclosure of all material facts necessary for assessment has not been made as noted above. If is pertinent to mention here that even though the assessee has produced books of accounts annual report audited P&L A/c and balance sheet or other evidence as mentioned above the requisite material facts as noted above in the reasons for reopening were embedded is such a manner that material evidence could not be discovered by the AO and could have been discovered with due diligence accordingly attracting provisions of Explanation I of section 147 of the Act. It is evident from the above discussion that in this case, the issues under consideration were never examined by the AO during the course of regular assessment/reassessment this fact is corroborated from the contents of notices issued by the AO u/s 143(2)/142(1) and order sheet entries recorded during the 143(3)/147 proceedings. It is highlight here that material facts relevant for the assessment on the issue's under consideration were not filed during the course of assessment proceeding and the some may be embedded in annual report, audited P&L A/c balance sheet books of account in such a manner that it would require due diligence by the AO to extract these information. For aforestated reasons, it is not a case of change of opinion by the AO. As the re-opening of the case relates to assessment year 2012-13 which is beyond four years, the approval of Ld. Pr. CIT, Central-2, New Delhi is required in this case. A proposal for issuing notice u/s 148 of the 1.T. Act, 1961 for assessment year 2012-13 is being sent as per prescribed proforma." 4.4 The appellant's contention that this issue was examined during assessment proceedings u/s 153C-r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act and it is mere change of opinion does not found to be acceptable as: i. assessment u/s 153C of the Act is based on seized incriminating documents/material during search operation u/s 132 of the Act. ii. the AO in reasons recorded has mentioned that from notices u/s 142(1) of the Act and order sheet entries it has been corroborated that this issue was not examined during asstt. proceedings. iii. assessment u/s 1530 r.w.s. 143(3) was completed vide order dated 30.03.2015, however information in respect of joint bank account has only been received by the AO on 16.03.2019 i.e. much time after completion of assessment. 4.5. There should be some material before the AO to form "reasons to believe" and their adequacy or sufficiency is not required to be established by AO. The reasons should have nexus with the issue and should not be vague, irrelevant or based on non specific information. In the present facts of the case, the information received from the ACIT, CC-30, Delhi do form the valid and credible grounds for "reasons to believe" by the AO which have direct nexus with the issue in hand. Further, it is observed that the AO has properly recorded the reasons for reopening and necessary approvals from the competent authority has been obtained before issue of notice.”
On perusal of the observations of Ld.CIT(A), we find that Ld. CIT(A) has examined the assessment records and found that no inquiry whatsoever was carried out in the assessment proceedings carried out u/s 153C of the Act and further observed that the assessment was based only on the material seized during search. Therefore, there is reason to believe that some income has escaped assessment. Before us, Ld.AR for the assessee has failed to controvert such findings of Ld. CIT(A and simply reiterated the submissions made before Ld. CIT(A).
In view of these facts, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld.CIT(A) in holding the action of AO in re-opening the assessment by issuing of notice u/s 148 of the Act. Accordingly, Ground of appeal No.1 raised by the assessee is dismissed.
Ground of appeal No.2 raised by the assessee is with respect to the addition of INR 1,30,24,681/- upheld by Ld.CIT(A).
It is further seen that Revenue is also in appeal against the addition of INR 9,49,75,319/- deleted by Ld. CIT(A) and all the grounds of appeal taken by Revenue are with respect to the deletion of such additions therefore, grounds of appeal taken by the assessee as well as by the Revenue are taken together for consideration.
Before us, Ld.AR submits that assessee has explained each and every transaction appearing in the bank account of the assessee jointly held by her wife and details of each individual entry appearing in the bank account is tabulated at page 15 & 16 of the appellate order.
Before us, Ld.AR submits that a chart containing the explanation of the entries which were confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) wherein nature of entries alongwith documentary evidences are enclosed. According to the said chart, the entries pertained to either refund of the booking amount or surrender of the sales for which the necessary evidences have been filed.
Ld. AR further submits that all the entries are duly explained and were duly considered in the computation of capital gain. He further submits that the assessee has filed the confirmations etc. with respect to these entries which had not been considered properly. He thus submits that the addition made deserves to be deleted.
With respect to the additions deleted by Ld.CIT(A), Ld.AR submits that Ld. CIT(A) has examined each and every entry and after going through the corresponding evidences filed, had reached to the conclusion that these entries were explained and deleted the same. He prayed for the confirmation of the order of Ld. CIT(A) to the extent of addition deleted by Ld. CIT(A).
On the other hand, Ld.CIT DR submits that assessee has failed to furnish any explanation with respect to deposits made in the bank account jointly owned by his wife. She further submits that the amounts appearing in the bank account and the explanation given as part of the sale consideration from the sale of property on which capital gain is declared cannot be accepted as the figures are not matching. She further submits that assessee has failed to corroborate the entries declared and accordingly, the addition deleted deserves to be restored. Ld. CIT DR further submits that sale consideration of INR 3,88,98,500/- in the return of income filed however, as per the details filed before ld. CIT(A), the entries related to the sale consideration was of INR 7,26,19,223/-. Accordingly, it was submitted that the additions were wrongly deleted by Ld. CIT(A). With respect to the additions sustained by Ld. CIT(A), Ld. CIT DR vehemently supported the order of Ld.CIT(A) and requested for the confirmation of the same.
Heard the contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. There are two components of the additions: -
(i) Out of the total addition of INR 10.18 crores, a sum of INR 1,30,24,681/- relates to the entries which were confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) and (ii) INR 9,49,75,319/- represents those entries which were accepted as genuine and for which additions were deleted by Ld.CIT(A).
With respect to the entries of INR 1,30,24,381/- before us, Ld.AR submits a chart which reproduced as below.
From the perusal of the above chart, we can verify each individual entry which is discussed as under:-
Entry of INR 21,999.33 dated 20.07.2011, it was explained that the said entries is related to refund of investment in shares and capital gain declared towards the same was accepted in the return of income filed. In this regard, it is seen from the P & L Account of the assessee which is available at page 14 of the Paper Book, total credit of INR 1,79,46,921/- regarding the profit from sale of properties. Further, from the perusal of the computation of income filed before us at page 1 of paper book, we find that there is no income declared on account of capital gain from sale of shares. It is further seen that Ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the addition since no documentary evidences were filed in respect of this addition.
Before us also, no details were filed except calming that these entries are provided from sale of shares. In absence of any proper documentary explanation, claim of the assessee cannot be accepted and accordingly, we uphold the addition of INR 21999.33.
With respect to the entries of INR 2,96,944 on 01.08.2011, INR 2,96,943/- on 01.08.2011, INR 2,96,944/- on 16.08.2011 & INR 2,96,943/- on 16.08.2011, it is claim of the assessee that assessee has received the amount on the cancellation of booking in Vipul Tech Square, Golf Course Road, Sector-43, Gurgaon against the refund of booking which was received with interest. The assessee submits that it had made booking which was refunded alongwith interest and the interest has already been offered for tax in the return of income filed. The cancellation documents of the said deal alongwith provisional bookings letter were submitted in the paper book filed before us. The Ld.AR for the assessee filed the details of booking alongwith copies of the cheques received which are in the Paper Book at Page 56 to 69. After careful consideration of the details so filed, we find that claim of the assessee the said amount is received from the cancellation of the booking alogwith interest is correct and since assessee has already offered the interest for tax. In view of these facts, we hereby direct the AO to delete the addition of these four deposits of INR 2,96,944/-, INR 2,96,943/-, INR 2,96,944/- & 2,96,943/- totaling to INR 11,87,774/-.
Next entry is of INR 65,14,908/- on 23.11.2011. With respect to this entry, it is explained by the assessee that same represents surrender/transfer proceeds of B-702, Krrish Provence Estate, Gwal Paharia, Gurgaon, Haryana. In support of this, assessee filed the evidences wherein assessee has claimed that this amount was received as transfer of booking in favour of Shri Anil Khanna and necessary letters issued by the builder regarding name substitutions of the assessee were also filed.
Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition by observing that the assessee has filed the copy of PAN and affidavit of Anil Khanna to whom said property was transferred. However, when the enquiry was carried out by AO on the instructions of CIT(A), in reply to notice u/s 133(6), no agreement to sale was filed therefore the addition was confirmed. It is see that the assessee has filed the details of Shri Anil Khanna and copy of the cheque issued by him which stood deposited and in reply to notice us/ 133(6) Shri Khanna has accepted the fact of purchases of property and explained the source thereof, it is established the said payment was received by the assessee from Shri Anil Khanna against the transfer of the rights in the property. In view of these facts, in our opinion there is no reason for treating the said deposit as unexplained. Accordingly, we hereby direct the AO to delete the addition of INR 65,14,908/-.
Regarding the entries of INR 2 Lakhs on 14.12.2011 & INR 51 Lakhs on 11.02.2012, it was claimed that the said amounts were received as advance against the transfer of House No. M-511, 2nd Floor, Orchid Island, Sector-51, Gurgaon to Shri Sunil Khera & Smt. Renu Khera. The assessee has filed their PAN, copy of NOC from the builder and further submitted copies of their passports in support of the identity which are placed at page 36 and 112 to 114 of the Paper Book. As the assessee has been able to establish the source of deposit as received from Shri Sunil Khera and Smt. Renu Khara against the transfer of booking of the flat and this fact is duly acknowledged by the builder also who has transferred the booking in their name by issuing the NOC in favour of assessee, we find no reason to hold the said deposit as unexplained and accordingly the AO is hereby directed to delete this addition.
With the above discussion, addition confirmed by ld. CIT(A) at INR 1,30,24,681/- is restricted to INR 21999.33. Accordingly, Ground of appeal No. 2 raised by the assessee is partly allowed.
Now coming to Revenue’s grounds of appeal with respect to the deletion of addition made of INR 9,49,75,319/-. It is seen that Ld.CIT(A) vide letter dated 07.06.2022 has directed the AO to examine the details field by the assessee with respect to the transfer of booking rights etc. and further direct to examine the entries related to receipt from Smt. Abha Sehgal, Shri Mukul Sehgal, Shri Anil Khanna, Shri Sunil Khera and Smt. Renu Khera. We have already deleted the credit entries pertaining related to the receipts from Shri Anil Khanna, Shri Sunil Khera and Smt. Renu Khera while deciding the ground of appeal No. 2 taken by the assessee.
29. Regarding the remaining entries, Ld. CIT(A) has discussed all these entries in detailed while deleting the additions and the relevant observation of ld. CIT(A) as contained in para 5.5.2 to 5.5.4, 5.5.6 to 5.5.14, 5.5.16 and 5.5.18 to 5.5.19 of the order are reproduced as under:-
5.5.2 “Credit entry at Sl. No. 3: The appellant submitted that amount of Rs. 51,56,500/- is previous year dues and final payment against sale/transfer of immovable property bearing no. Apartment No. 701, 7th Floor, Tower-10, 17 LB, Vipul Belmonte, Sector-53, Village-Wazirabad, Distt.- Gurgoan, Haryana to Sh. Madan Gopal Vinaik. The appellant furnished copy of sale deed dated 08.04.2011 as per which the appellant received cheque bearing no. 005276 dated 06.04.2011 amounting to Rs. 51,56,500/- for sale of immovable property. Hence, credit entry at Sl. No. 3 is considered as explained. 5.5.3 Credit entry at Sl. No. 4: This amount of Rs. 250/- is refund received from income tax department and therefore credit entry at Sl. No. 4 is considered as explained. 5.5.4 Credit entries at Sl. No. 6, 9, 16 & 17: The appellant submitted that above credit entries is refund of booking amount with interest from Vipul Ltd. The appellant has furnished provisional registration letter dated 15.12.2005 from Vipul Limited for payment of Registration amount of Rs. 9,22,500/- vide receipt no. 269 dated 15.12.2005 towards purchase of plot. Thereafter, the appellant applied on 20.08.2008 for cancellation of allotment of plot. Against the said cancellation, the appellant has calculated interest till 13.06.2011 at Rs. 4,56,296/-. The appellant received total amount of Rs. 13,33,166/-after deduction of TDS of Rs. 45,629/. The appellant and appellant's wife both being c applicant received amount of Rs. 6,66,853.20/- (3,33,291.602) each from Vipul Limited. In view of this discussion, credit entries at Sl. No. 6, 9, 16 & 17 are considered as explained. ……………. 5.5.6 Credit entries at Sl. No. 10 & 41: From the perusal of joint bank A/c statement, it is noted that these credit entries of Rs. 4,557/- and Rs. 20,639/- are interest on saving bank account credited by the bank and therefore credit entries at Sl. No. 10 & 41 are considered as explained. 5.5.7 Credit entries at Sl. No. 11, 12 & 13: From the perusal of joint bank-A/e-statement, it is noted that these credit entries of Rs. 16,000/-, Rs. 360/- & Rs. 360/- are dividend received by the appellant from Tata Sponge and DLF Limited respectively and therefore credit entries at Sl. No. 11, 12 & 13 are considered as explained. 5.5.8 Credit entry at Sl. No. 23 :The appellant submitted that amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-was received as advance from Mrs. Abha Sahgal and Mr. Mukul Sahgal against sale/transfer of Unit No. A-601, Provence Estate, Gurgaon Faridabad Road, Gurgaon. In this regard, a report was called from the AO vide letter dated 07.06.2022 and the AO furnished the report vide letter dated 14.11.2022. As per para 4 & 4.1 of report of the AO, Mrs. Abha Sahgal and Mr. Mukul Sahgal in addition to Rs. 63,96,000/- (already considered by the AO in asstt. Proceedings) also paid amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- vide cheque no. 155525 towards purchase of immovable property A-601, Provence Estate, Gurgaon. In view of above, credit entry at Sl. No. 23 is considered as explained. 5.5.9. Credit entries at Sl. No. 24, 28 & 35: The appellant furnished copy of agreement to sell dated 18.11.2011 as per which the appellant sold immovable property bearing no. Apartment no. 502, Tower-A, Krrish Provence Estate, Gurgaon to Mr. Anirudha Taparla. The appellant received amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- vide cheque no. 302420 dated 14.09.2011, Rs. 50,00,000/- vide RTGS dated 05.10.2011 & Rs. 44,11,272/- vide cheque no. 130951 dated 22.11.2011 towards sales consideration from Mr. Anirudha
Taparia. In view of above, credit entries at Sl. No. 24, 28 & 35 are considered as explained. 5.5.10 Credit entry at Sl. No. 25: The appellant submitted that amount of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- was internal transfer entry from his proprietorship firm M/s Aggarwal Iron & Steel Co. having account no. 349905040101322 to his joint saving bank account no. 349902010039174. The AO in report dated 14.11.2022 enclosed copy of Union Bank of India A/c no. 349905040101322 of M/s Aggarwal Iron & Steel Co. called u/s 133(6) of the Act. (i) On perusal of Union Bank of India A/c no. 349905040101322 of M/s Aggarwal Iron & Steel Co., it is noted that amount of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- was debited on 29.09.2011 and re-credited on 01.10.2011. (ii) On perusal of Union Bank of India joint bank A/c no. 349902010039174 of the appellant, it is noted that amount of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- was credited on 29.09.2011 and debited on 01.10.2011. Hence, it is crystal clear that amount of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- credited into the appellant's joint bank A/c was internal transfer entry from his proprietorship firm M/s Aggarwal Iron & Steel Co. and therefore contention of the appellant is found to be correct. In view of above, credit entry at Sl. No. 25 is considered as explained. 5.5.11. Credit entry at Sl. No. 26: The appellant furnished copy of sale deed date 03.10.2011 as per which the appellant sold immovable property being basement and ground floor at House No. 1, Road No. L-6A, DLF City, Phase-II, Village-Sarhaul, Distt. Guragaon, Haryana to Mr. Jai Kishan Vohra. The appellant received amount of Rs. 1,25,34,000/- vide cheque no. 006072 dated 01.11.2011 towards sales consideration from Mr. Jai Kishan Vohra. In view of above, credit entry at Sl. No. 26 is considered as explained. 5.5.12. Credit entry at Sl. No. 27: The appellant furnished copy of sale deed dated 03.10.2011 as per which the appellant sold immovable property being 1st and 2nd floor at House No. 1, Road No. L-6A, DLF City, Phase-II, Village-Sarhaul, Distt.- Guragaon, Haryana to Smt. Rita Vohra. The appellant received amount of Rs. 1,10,66,000/- vide cheque no. 006077 dated 01.11.2011 towards sales consideration from Smt. Rita Vohra. In view of above, credit entry at Sl. No. 27 is considered as explained.
5.5.13 Credit entries at Sl. No. 31 & 32: The appellant furnished copy of sale deed dated 20.10.2011 as per which the appellant sold immovable property being residential unit bearing no. 801, Tower No. 2, 8th Floor, Vipul Belmonte, Village-Wazirabad, Sector-53, Tehsil & Distt. Guragaon, Haryana-to-M/s-Green-Way-promoters Pvt. Ltd. The appellant received amount of Rs. 65,00,000/- vide cheque no. 737862 dated 14.10.2011 & Rs. 45,04,460 vide cheque dated 450460 dated 19.10.2011 towards-sales- consideration from M/s Green Way promoters Pvt. Ltd. In view of above, credit entries at Sl. No. 31 & 32 are considered as explained. 5.5.14 Credit entry at Sl. No. 33: The appellant furnished copy of agreement to sell dated 21.11.2011 as per which the appellant sold immovable property being Unit No. A-501, krrish Provence Estate, Gwal Pahari, Gurgaon to Smt. Shakun Chandhok. The appellant received amount of Rs. 99,94,908/- vide cheque no. 006371 dated 02.11.2011 towards sales consideration from Smt. Shakun Chandhok. In view of above, credit entry at Sl. No. 33 is considered as explained. …………….. 5.5.16 Credit entry at Sl. No. 36 is refund of amount of Rs. 98.41 debited on 07.11.2011 towards NSDL-Application and therefore is considered as explained. ……………….. 5.5.18 Credit entries at Sl. No. 38, 39 & 40: The appellant furnished copy of agreement to sell dated 03.01.2012 as per which the appellant sold immovable property being Apartment No. B-1101, Provence Estate, Gwal Pahari, Gurgaon Faridabad Road, Gurgaon to Smt. Sushma Varma for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,36,53,635/-. The appellant received amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- vide cheque no. 111347 dated 19.12.2011, Rs. 46,53,635/- vide cheque no. 846936& Rs. 70,00,000/- vide cheque no. 115121 dated 09.01.2011 towards sales consideration from Smt. Sushma Varma. In view of above, credit entries at Sl. No. 38, 39 & 40 are considered as explained. 5.5.19 Credit entry at Sl. No. 43: The appellant furnished copy of agreement to sell dated 28.03.2012 as per which the appellant sold immovable property being Flat No. 1601. Tower-F, in ABW- SUNCITY La Lagune, Sector-54, Gurgaon to Mrs. Asha Gupta for a sales consideration of Rs. 1,50,41,930/-. The appellant received amount of Rs. 25,00,000/-vide cheque no. 986284 dated 14.02.2012 as earnest money towards sales consideration from Mrs. Asha Gupta. In view of above, credit entry at Sl. No. 43 is considered as explained.”
Before us, Revenue has failed to controvert the findings of Ld.CIT(A) who after thorough examination of the explanation tendered by the assessee with respect to the nature of the entries and remand report submitted by AO, has deleted the additions made by the AO. Therefore, we find no error in the order of Ld.CIT(A) to this extent and accordingly the same are hereby upheld. Grounds of appeal Nos. 1 & 2 raised by the Revenue are dismissed.