DURAISAMY PARAMESWARAN,SALEM vs. ACIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (4) , CHENNAI
The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order
ITA 1025/CHNY/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2023AY 2016-2017
Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1025/Chny/2022 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Duraisamy Parameswaran Acit बनाम No.205, Krishna Nagar, Alagapuran, Central Circle-2(4), / Vs. Kattur, Salem-636 016. Chennai "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ajlpp-1999-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri V. Padmanabhan (Ca) & Shri R. Venkat Raman (Ca) – Ld.Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran (Cit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03-08-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-08-2023 आदेश / O R D E R
For Appellant: Shri V. Padmanabhan (CA) &For Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 37(1)
…lleged seller. As per the terms of this agreement, the assessee was to receive back the said advance amount of Rs.5 Lacs. The same lend credence to the submissions of the assessee. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vivek Prahladbhai Patel (66 Taxmann.com 41), in similar circumstances, held that since the revenue failed to bring on record reliable evidence to prove that the assessee had made actual investment, the additions would not be sustainable. Similar is the case law of Jaipur Tribunal in Smt. Renu Agarwal vs. ACIT (88 Taxmann.com 872) which supports the case of the assessee. This decisio…