2023 (1) TMI 1111 - ITAT JAIPUR

Revision u/s 263 - assessee has failed to explain the source of investment made for purchase of the immovable property - HELD THAT:- Assessee had furnished return of income for the year under consideration under presumptive taxation under section 44AD and disclosed required particulars. The Assessing Officer while passing the order has categorically mentioned that he had verified and examined the reply and documents furnished by the assessee.

AO has further mentioned that the assessee had furnished written reply, copy of Income-tax return with computation of income, profit and loss account, cash flow statement, confirmation of accounts, receipts for sale consideration, agreement for sale, sale deed dated July 20, 2011 bank statements, etc. This finding and recording of these facts is not disputed by PCIT. Initial reply furnished by the appellant vide letter dated June 20, 2019 wherein the appellant disclosed that the appellant deals in real estate business activity and that main source of business income is from real estate business.

Appellant also furnished copy of purchase deed dated July 20, 2011 for Rs. 60,00,000 in respect of agricultural land purchased by the appellant. This information was furnished in compliance to notice dated June 13, 2019 issued under section 142(1) - From the copy of purchase deed it is apparent that the appellant purchased agricultural land from two ladies, paid consideration in cash which is acknowledged by the sellers of land, that purchased deed was signed on July 18, 2011 and got registered in the office of sub-registrar on July 19, 2011. The appellant paid stamp duty and registration expenses of Rs. 3,58,360 in cash. Therefore, genuineness of payment and identity of recipients got established and which has not been disputed even by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued another notice under section 142(1)

Thus after carefully, analysing the facts and circumstances and the settled position of law, we hold that the revision order passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax is not justified.