ATUL LAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee, along with his brother Shri Akhil Lal, showed to have received individually a sum of Rs.60,50,000/- from M/s Sanskar Homes Pvt. Ltd. in pursuance of an Agreement with M/s Sanskar Homes Pvt. Ltd. for development/sale of ancestral property situated at S-92, Panchsheel Park. When the AO called upon the assessee to adduce necessary evidence in confirmation of this receipt of advance of Rs.60,50,000/- from M/s Sanskar Homes Pvt. Ltd., the assessee submitted that due to dispute with the said Builder, he was not in a position to get confirmation. Notice u/s 133(6) was issued by the AO to M/s Sanskar Homes Pvt. Ltd. Vide their reply dated 20.10.2011, they stated to have paid a sum of Rs.73,33,877.50 to the assessee. The AO required the assessee to explain the differential amount of Rs.12.83 lac which was not recorded in his books of account though M/s Sanskar Homes Pvt. Ltd. claimed to have given it to the assessee. The assessee refuted the allegation of having received a sum of Rs.10 lac claimed to have paid by M/s Sanskar Homes Pvt. Ltd. on 11.9.2008. As regards the remaining amount of Rs.2.83 lac, the assessee submitted that M/s Sanskar Homes Pvt. Ltd. has paid this amount to 2 DDA on behalf of the assessee for converting the property into freehold and this amount would be adjusted at the time of finalization of the sale.

After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, we observe that the dispute in the instant appeal is about the taxability or otherwise of the sum of Rs.12,83,877/-. The ld. AR submitted that due to dispute between the assessee and his brother on the one hand and M/s Sanskar Homes Pvt. Ltd., on the other, the Builder had wrongly shown the amount of cash payment of Rs.10 lac to the assessee for which there was no evidence. The ld. AR submitted that a suit was filed and, eventually, final settlement was arrived at wherein there is no reference to this payment of Rs.10 lac. An application under Rule 29 has been filed by the assessee submitting additional evidence from pages 120-125 of the paper book, inter alia, a copy of Compromise. The ld. AR contended that this Compromise was reached between the parties on 22.8.2012 and the final sale transaction was shown in the previous year relevant to assessment year 2013-14 pursuant to such settlement dated 22.8.2012. Since this is an additional evidence having a bearing on the issue under consideration, we admit this additional evidence and send the matter to the file of the AO for a fresh consideration and decision as per law on the issue under consideration.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.