Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

23. The Revenue is now in appeal before us against the aforesaid findings of the ld. CIT(A). The learned DR supported the order of the AO while the learned AR on behalf of the assessee supported the findings of the learned CIT(A).

24. W e have heard both the parties and gone through the facts of the case. The ld. CIT(A) after examining the terms and conditions of an unsigned agreement inventorised at pages 14 and 15 of Annexure A-8 and perusal of statement of Shri Hanubhai, who wanted to purchase the said land observed that the deal in terms of the said unsigned document was cancelled and the land was stated to be still in tact. Since the AO did not make any inquiry from the alleged sellers i.e. Shri Indubhai Vaghani and Anilbhai Patel nor ascertained as to whether or not deal was materialized the ld. CIT(A) concluded that estimation of brokerage income by the AO was without any basis and accordingly, deleted the addition. The ld. DR did not refer us to any material, controverting these finding of facts recorded by the ld. CIT(A). In the absence of any material so as to enable us to take a different view in the matter, we have no hesitation in upholding the findings of the ld.