9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ddition of Rs. 4.5 Crore being unexplained investment u/s 69C, admitting fresh evidence without giving the AO an opportunity, violating norms of Rule 46A. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of &s. 6,76,72.000/- being unexplained investment u/s 69B, admitting fresh evidences without giving the AO an opportunity, violating norms of Rule 46A. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 75,00,000/- out of addition of Rs. 7,55,14,200/- being unexplained receipts, admitting fresh evidences without giving the AO an opportunity, violating norms of Rule 46A. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her the AIR information reported that the assesse had entered into purchase transactions with nine other parties for Rs. 75 lakhs each; not shown by the assessee. In the response to the show cause notice, assessee submitted that, all the transactions were duly accounted for in the books of account and all the transaction represented sale of flats at Nilkant Heights, Thane developed by the assessee and there is no transaction of purchases. The assessing officer rejected the assessee's contention and treated the sums aggregating Rs. 6,76,72,000/- as unexplained investment. From the said transaction, he also added further amount of Rs. 75 lakhs u/s 69C. 4. Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee regarding payment of cash of Rs. 4.50 crores, submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the same is registered on 12/07/06. Also the amount is duly accounted for in the books. I therefore come to the conclusion that, the addition of Rs. 4.50 Crore is uncalled for and unjustified. Accordingly, I direct the AO to delete the addition. The ground is allowed." 5. As regard 2nd and 3rd addition, it was explained by the assessee that, the transaction represented registration of sale documents in respect of nine flats sold by the assessee and there was no purchase transaction as wrongly understood by the AO. On this issue also, the assessee furnished the confirmation letter from the Sub-registrar. The Ld.CIT(A) deleted the said addition after observing and holding as under:- "In the submission made to me by the AR , it is explain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasons for admitting the additional evidences, therefore, there is a clear violation of Rule 46A. 8. On the other hand learned counsel, Shri Vijay Mehta submitted that, when the AIR information was confronted to the assesse, it was requested to the AO to provide the correct details and carry out enquiry from Sub-registrar, as the assesse has neither paid any cash for the registered sale deed of development agreement nor has made any purchases of flats, rather it was sale of flats. The assessing officer refused to accept the assessee's explanation and the evidences filed by it and also did not carry out any enquiry himself despite specific request from the office of the Sub-registrar. He drew our attention to the letters given to the AO r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification from the Sub-registrar office has made the said addition. Such an uncorroborated AIR information cannot be said to sacrosanct that AO is even precluded from examining the facts or carry out any inquiry. The AIR information cannot be adversely viewed against the assessee if the assessee has rebutted the transaction reported in the said AIR. Here in this case, the Sub-registrar has duly clarified that, there was a mistake on their part in recording the amount in the column of cash and on said clarification given by a public authority, Ld.CIT(A) has deleted the addition. There is no question of violation of any Rule 46A. Thus addition of Rs. 4.50 crores has rightly been deleted. 10. Regarding addition of Rs. 6,76,72,000/- it is ampl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,06,566/- being the interest earned on the fixed deposit made out of corpus/proposed society funds which funds do not belong to the assessee company and which funds are held by the assessee company in fiduciary capacity." 14. Brief facts are the issue involved is that, on perusal of the TDS certificates filed along with the return of income, the AO noted that the assesse has received interest of Rs. 3,94,98,940/- from the various banks, but has only offered sum of Rs. 3,88,18,540/-. The AO considering the assessee's clarification, noted that the amount of Rs. 4,06,566/- was on account of interest received on account fixed deposits of society which has not been offered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
