9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nded that CIT(A) has placed the burden of proof upon the AO, which is against the established principles, i.e., the burden lies upon the assessee to disprove the items disclosed in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities – thus, the issue relating to the movable properties needs to be adjudicated by the CIT(A) – thus, the matter is remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication – Decided partly in favour of Revenue. - ITA. No. 1529/Hyd/2010 - - - Dated:- 17-4-2014 - Shri B. R. Baskaran And Shri Saktijit Dey,JJ. For the Petitioner : Smt. K. Haritha For the Respondent : Mr. A. V. Raghuram ORDER Per B. R. Baskaran, A. M. The appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the Order dated 23.09.2010 passed by the CIT(A)-VII, Hyderabad and it relates to the A.Y. 2005-2006. 2. The Revenue, in its revised grounds of appeal, is assailing the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.1,88,01,000/- made by the A.O. on the basis of a document found during the course of search carried out in Paragon group cases. 3. The facts relating to the issue are stated in brief. The revenue carried on search and seizure operations under section 132 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt was Rs.2,40,01,000/-. The A.O. further noticed that the immovable properties listed as Item (a), having a value of Rs.52.00 lakhs, was already disclosed by the assessee. Accordingly, the AO deducted the value of Rs. 52 lakhs pertaining to the above said asset and assessed difference of Rs.1,88,01,000/- (2,40,01,000 less 52,00,000) as income of the assessee under section 69 of the Act. 4. In the appellate proceedings before Ld CIT(A), the assessee submitted certain additional evidences relating to immovable properties and contended that the immovable properties were acquired long back and not during the year under consideration. The Ld. CIT(A) called for a remand report from the A.O. The Assessing officer furnished the first remand report on 25.02.2009; wherein he submitted that the additional evidences that were produced by the assessee are not related to the properties mentioned in the document used for assessment purpose. Later on, A.O. conducted field enquiries and furnished another remand report on 31.08.2009, wherein he furnished the details relating to the immovable properties. For the sake of convenience, we extract below the report submitted by the A.O. in respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the A.O. to the extent of Rs.1,88,01,000 towards immovable properties and movable properties is not on fair grounds. The properties purchased by the appellant are not coming under the relevant assessment year even though the property purchased on 19.06.2003 is coming for A.Y. 2004-05. No evidence whatsoever is adduced in support of movable properties. Hence, in the light of dates of purchases of properties, it cannot be said that the said properties as discussed in para 4.2 are to be assessed for the relevant assessment year. Since no evidence is gathered, movable properties as alleged cannot be added. Therefore, I am inclined to delete the above addition which is made towards movable and immovable properties. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has filed this appeal before us. 7. The learned D.R. submitted that the Ld CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition without properly appreciating the additional evidence furnished by the assessee and remand report submitted by A.O. The learned D.R. submitted that date of acquisition of property originally disclosed by the assessee did not match with the documents and hence, the explanation of the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... operties , the details of five properties have been furnished. The assessing officer has accepted that the property listed as (a) and having a value of Rs.52.00 lakhs has already been disclosed by the assessee, even though there was a difference in the door number. In respect of the remaining four properties, the assessing officer has conducted enquiries during the course of remand proceedings and expressed following view : (a) In respect of property listed as (b), the AO has made enquiries with Sub Registrar office and found that there is no transaction in respect of the said property in the name of the assessee. (b) In respect of property listed as (c), the assessee has filed a copy of sale deed dated 19.6.2003, i.e., the property was not purchased during the year under consideration. (c) In respect of property listed as (d), the assessee has filed a copy of sale deed dated 13.6.2000, i.e., the property was not purchased during the year under consideration. (d) In respect of property listed as (e), the AO has ascertained from the Sub registrar office that there was no transaction after 1.5.1995 in respect of the said property. Thus, we notice that the assessing off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
