Prashant Rameshchandra Samdani v. ACIT (2024) 204 ITD 547 /227 TTJ 17 (UO) (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Un explained expenditure-Cash purchase-No transaction was entered during the year-Reopening on the basis of statement of N.K. Vora is not valid-Incorrect fact-Reassessment is quashed. [S.69C, 148]

On basis of statement of N.K.Vora  sales head of Sunshine group, that assessee had paid certain sum in cash for purchase of a property from Trincas Agencies  & Commerce Pvt Ltd. Assessment was   reopened and Assessing Officer proceeded to hold that assessee paid on money (difference between agreement value and market value) to builders which was added to income of assessee being unexplained expenditure under section 69C. CIT(A)) affirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. On appeal the Tribunal held that   sale consideration paid by assessee was more than market value of said property. Since assessee’s transaction vide sale agreement dated 13-8-2012 did not fall during year under consideration nor assessee had entered into any agreement with Sunshine group, rather purchased property by virtue of agreement entered into with Trincas Agencies  & Commerce Pvt Ltd,  reopening was not sustainable in eyes of law being based upon incorrect facts. (AY. 2011-12)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*