9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 522X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present case is an individual. A search and seizure action under S.132 was conducted on his residential premises. Subsequently, a notice under S.153A was issued by the Assessing Officer, in response to which return of income was filed by the assessee declaring total income of Rs. 4,72,540 and agricultural income of Rs. 3,00,000. In the assessment originally completed under S.143(3) read with S.153A, vide order dated 24.12.2010, the total income of the assessee was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 1,00,46,040. After having failed to succeed in the appeal filed before the learned CIT(A) against the said order of the Assessing Officer, appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide its order dated 29. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the purchase of land was shown as land development charges." Keeping in view the above submissions made by the assessee, the payments of Rs. 80,22,500 claimed to be made by the assessee to M/s. SK builders were verified by the Assessing Officer and on such verification, he found that payment only to the extent of R.14,00,000 was made by the assessee to the partners of M/s. S.K.Builders while the balance amount of Rs. 66,22,500 was paid to other persons who had no relationship with M/s. SK Builders. Though the assessee claimed that these payments were made to the other persons on the request of Shri Jameel Ahmed Khan, partner of S.K. Buidlers, this claim of the assessee was not accepted by the Assessing Officer, in the absence of any docu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Iqbal Unnisa 22.11.07 974512 15,00,000 3. Mohd Irfan 22.11.07 266949 5,00,000 Mohd Irfan 22.11.07 974521 5,00,000 Mohd Irfan 18.01.08 266845 5,01,000 Mohd Irfan 18.01.08 266846 5,02,000 Mohd Irfan 19.01.08 266847 4,98,000 Mohd Irfan 19.11.08 266848 4,99,000 4. Moin Shareef 22.11.07 974523 6,22,500 TOTAL 66,22,500 We also confirm that we have admitted the entire sale consideration of Rs. 3,37,77,500/-." 6.2 The Hon'ble ITATs directions were to verify whether the payments were relatable to land or not. From the assessment order it is evident that the Assessing Officer has accepted 14 lakhs and disallowed the balance Rs. 66.22 lakhs only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on to the relevant portion of the orders of the Assessing Officer as well as the learned CIT(A) to point out that the said confirmation letter was not filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer and the same was filed for the first time before the learned CIT(A). He has contended that the learned CIT(A) has given the relief to the assessee by deleting the entire addition of Rs. 66,22,500 made by the Assessing Officer relying on the said confirmation letter, which clearly constituted additional evidence, without giving any opportunity to the Assessing Officer to verify the same. He has contended that there is thus clear violation of Rule 46A of the Incometax Rules, 1962 by the learned CIT(A) and his impugned order therefore, be set as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er that the claim of the assessee of having paid the amount of Rs. 66,22,500 to persons other than the partners of M/s. SK Builders on the request of M/s.SK Builders, was not supported by any evidence filed by the assessee. We therefore, are inclined to accept the contention of the Learned Departmental Representative that the relevant confirmation letter was filed by the assessee for the first time before the learned CIT(A) and the same constituting additional evidence was relied upon by the learned CIT(A) to give relief to the assessee without giving any opportunity to the Assessing Officer to verify the same. There is thus a clear violation of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 by the CIT(A), and his impugned order is therefore, liabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
