9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 756X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issed the appeal of assessee against the additions made in the assessment order. We deem it appropriate to dispose of the appeal itself since facts are on record. 2. Short facts apropos are that assessee engaged in the business of jewellery making had filed his return of income for the impugned Assessment Year declaring income of Rs.1,75,540/-. During the course of assessment, Assessing Officer noted that there were AIR information regarding two properties purchased by the assessee during the relevant previous year. One of these house property was located at Supri Street, Coimbatore and other was located at Karuppa Gounder street. Cost for the purchase of the property at Supri street came to Rs.36,53,100/- including expenses for registrat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t documents made as an after thought. A sum of Rs.2,20,000/- was found to have been paid as excess stamp duty, for which also no source particulars were furnished by the assessee. He. therefore made an addition of Rs.3,30,000/- for the property at Karuppa Gounder street and Rs. 22,70,000/- for the property at Supri street relying on section 69 of the Act and completed the assessment. 3. In its appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax(A), submission of the assessee was that he was not given an opportunity to explain the mismatch/disparity in dates mentioned in the statements recorded from the tenants, who had given the bokiyam amounts. Assessee also filed affidavits obtained from tenants in support of his contention that the sum of Rs.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing Officer. 4. Now, before us, Authorised Representative of the assessee assailing the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) submitted that there were indeed some mismatch in the dates mentioned by the tenants before the Assessing Officer and the dates mentioned by them in their respective affidavits filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax(A). However, according to him none of the authorities below had given the assessee an opportunity to explain the reason for disparity in dates and why the dates were not matching. According to him, at the time when the statements were recorded from the tenants, they were unable to recall correctly the dates on which the money was paid by them. if given one more chance, assessee will be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of one of the properties, viz. property at Karuppa Gounder street was accepted by the Assessing Officer and the source for purchase given by the assessee was accepted. However, bokiyam amounts for the other property were disbelieved due to mismatch of date. Nevertheless, it remains a fact that each of the persons, who were examined had confirmed the payment of bokiyam. There is a fair chance that when statements were recorded, concerned tenant could have made a mistake as to the exact dates of payments. None of the authorities sought any explanation from the assessee for the mismatch of dates. Assessing Officer proceeded to make the addition under Section 69 only for a reason that such dates, as per bokiyam agreements were after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
