9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Addition of unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Assumption of Jurisdiction under Section 147 read with Section 148: The appellant contended that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to apply his mind to the reasons recorded for initiating re-assessment proceedings under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appellant argued that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (S.C) was not applicable to the present case. The appellant prayed that the re-opening of the case be declared as bad in law. The Tribunal held that the case was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. The AO had sufficient material to re-open the assessment, including an Agreement to Sell dated 14.10.1999 and a registered Sale Deed. The Tribunal found that there was a "reason to believe" that income had escaped assessment, which was sufficient for initiating re-assessment proceedings. The Tribunal upheld the findings of the CIT(A) and dismissed the ground of appeal regarding the re-opening of the case, citing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. (supra). 2. Addition of Unexplained Investment under Section 69: The appellant contended that the agreement dated 14.10.1999 was not genuine and that the agreement dated 03.02.2000 was the one acted upon. The AO made an addition of Rs. 2,00,000 as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the appellant admitted the existence of the Agreement to Sell dated 14.10.1999, which mentioned a consideration of Rs. 85 lacs. The same demand drafts were recorded in both the agreements dated 14.10.1999 and 03.02.2000. The Tribunal found it unbelievable that drafts were purchased in pursuance of the agreement dated 03.02.2000, which was executed four months after the original agreement. The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) had correctly appreciated the documentary evidence, including the statements of witnesses and the Notary Public. The Tribunal upheld the findings of the CIT(A) and dismissed the ground of appeal regarding the addition of unexplained investment. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees, upholding the re-opening of the assessment under Section 147 read with Section 148 and the addition of unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the AO had sufficient material to re-open the assessment and that the addition of unexplained investment was justified based on the documentary evidence and statements provided.
|
