9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 851X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es and this total addition was made of Rs.39,35,653/-. Out of this, CIT(A) has upheld the addition to the extent of Rs.31,35,633/- and he has allowed a relief of only Rs.8 lakh on the basis that this amount was received by the assessee from Mrs. Sukhbiri Devi, mother of the assessee and the assessee has produced cogent evidence in the form of bank account of Mrs. Sukhibiri Devi, the sources of funds, copy of her income-tax return and the copy of her PAN. A clear finding is given by the CIT(A) that the source of Rs.8 lakh stands explained. No specific defect could be pointed out by the Ld.DR of the Revenue in the order of the CIT(A) on this aspect and hence, no reason to interfere in the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. Revenue is also dismissed, assessee's appeals for AY 2001-02 and 02-03 are allowed. - ITA. Nos. 1523, 1639,1640 and 1641/Del./2009, ITA. Nos.1809,1810,1811,1812 and 1813/Del./2009, - - - Dated:- 12-2-2010 - R.P. Tolani, A.K. Garodia, JJ. Prakash Narain, Adv. and S.K. Chaturvedi, CA for the Appellant V.K. Tiwari, CIT(DR) for the Respondent ORDER 1. Out of this bunch of nine appeals, there are eight cross appeals of the assessee and the Reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earn any commission on account of sale of its own properties, the additions upheld by the CIT(A) should be deleted. As against this it was submitted by the Ld.DR of the Revenue that a clear finding is given by the CIT(A) on page 11 of his order in AY 2001-02 that the assessee has shown the sale of all the properties at the same rate on which these properties were acquired. It was his submission that the assessee must have acquired these properties from Ansal Group at a lesser price after reducing the commission which the assessee would have earned if the properties had been sold to outsider and hence the CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition to this extent in both the years. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that these properties were allotted to the assessee against commission earned by the assessee as part consideration on account of properties sold through the assessee as an agent. This fact clearly shows that these two sale consideration in these two years are on account of sale of own properties acquired by the assessee and hence there is no question of earning any commission income on account of these sales in these two years. Regarding the contenti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ous and not tenable in law and on facts. 9. Ld.DR of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas the Ld.AR of the assessee supported the order of the CIT(A). It was also his submission that the CIT(A) has decided the issue on the basis of remand report submitted by the AO and hence the order of the CIT(A) should be upheld. Regarding the additional evidence submitted by the assessee before the CIT(A), it was submitted that clear finding is given by the CIT(A) in para.6 on page 4 of his order that it was the submission of the assessee before the CIT(A) that due to paucity of time, the details could not be gathered and analysed during the course of assessment proceedings as the matter pertained to earlier years and hence there was a reasonable cause which prevented the assessee form furnishing the details/evidences before the AO during the assessment proceedings and hence, CIT(A) has rightly admitted the additional evidence on the basis of these facts. 10. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In the present case, the AO has issued notice to the assessee on 10.07.2007 asking the assessee to submit the return in prescribed form for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Revenue for AY 2001-02 is dismissed. 13. Now we take up the appeal of Revenue for AY 2002-03 i.e. ITA NO.1639/Del./2009. Ground no. 1 to 4 read as under: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in reducing the addition of Rs.1,13,74,689/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unrecorded sale proceeds by Rs.52,38,432/-. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in admitting the additional evidence adduced by the assessee even though sufficient opportunity had been given to him by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in admitting the additional evidence even though the assessee could not prove that he was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the same before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in admitting the additional evidence despite the objections of the Assessing Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We have considered the rival submissions and considering the facts of the present case, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the CIT(A) because apart form referring the matter to the DVO and adopting the valuation as per the DVO report after allowing the relief of 20%, the AO has not brought on record any material to show that the purchase price shown by the assessee is not correct. This is now a settled position of law that merely on the basis of the DVO's report, addition cannot be made on account of unexplained investment in property particularly in a search case and hence we confirm the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. 19. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2002-03 is also dismissed. 20. Now, we take up the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2003-04. The grounds raised by the revenue read as under: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in reducing the addition of Rs.58,18,242/- made by the AO on account of unexplained investment in properties, fixed assets, out of loans given by Rs.7,49,400/-. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted by the Ld.DR of the Revenue that in the present case, there is no remand report. He supported the assessment order whereas the Ld.AR of the assessee supported the order of the CIT(A). 62. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the AO had made addition of Rs.36,79,493/- on account of unexplained investment in immoveable properties and of Rs.2,50,160/- on account of repayment of unsecured loans out of unexplained sources and this total addition was made of Rs.39,35,653/-. Out of this, CIT(A) has upheld the addition to the extent of Rs.31,35,633/- and he has allowed a relief of only Rs.8 lakh on the basis that this amount was received by the assessee from Mrs. Sukhbiri Devi, mother of the assessee and the assessee has produced cogent evidence in the form of bank account of Mrs. Sukhibiri Devi, the sources of funds, copy of her income-tax return and the copy of her PAN. A clear finding is given by the CIT(A) that the source of Rs.8 lakh stands explained. No specific defect could be pointed out by the Ld.DR of the Revenue in the order of the CIT(A) on this aspect and hence, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. We, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
