LATE SHRI JASRAJ MULTANMAL JAIN AHMEDABAD
TRIBUNAL Jul 17, 2015 (2015) 44 CCH 0387 AhdTrib
Assessee had purchased a piece of land for consideration which was mortgaged with the bank before the sale— Vendors paid Rs. 65 lacs to the bank and get the property released—AO held a belief that assessee must have paid unaccounted money over and above the consideration stated in the sale deed to the vendors which was ultimately deposited in bank and got released the land—AO had assumed that assessee has made unexplained investment in purchasing the property on the ground that vendors have got the property released from the bank and it was sold to the assessee and for same assessee had paid undisclosed sum—It was for the vendors to explain the source of what amount which they have discharged towards their loan liability and it cannot be presumed that it must be taken from the assessee in cash over and above the amounts stated in the sale deed—But AO had failed to make reference of any evidence which demonstrate that assessee has made unexplained investment—There was no direct co-relation between the discharge of loan liability vis-à-vis sale of plot—No evidence was with the AO to suggest that assessee had made unexplained investment in the purchase of the property—Revenue’s appeal dismissed
Assessee had purchased a piece of land for consideration which was mortgaged with the bank before the sale— Vendors paid Rs. 65 lacs to the bank and get the property released—AO held a belief that assessee must have paid unaccounted money over and above the consideration stated in the sale deed to the vendors which was ultimately deposited in bank and got released the land—AO had assumed that assessee has made unexplained investment in purchasing the property on the ground that vendors have got the property released from the bank and it was sold to the assessee and for same assessee had paid undisclosed sum—It was for the vendors to explain the source of what amount which they have discharged towards their loan liability and it cannot be presumed that it must be taken from the assessee in cash over and above the amounts stated in the sale deed—But AO had failed to make reference of any evidence which demonstrate that assessee has made unexplained investment—There was no direct co-relation between the discharge of loan liability vis-à-vis sale of plot—No evidence was with the AO to suggest that assessee had made unexplained investment in the purchase of the property—Revenue’s appeal dismissed
No comments:
Post a Comment