9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 522X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther hand, there is a clear mention made by the Assessing Officer on page 3 of the assessment order that the claim of the assessee of having paid the amount of ₹ 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 violatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst the said order of the Assessing Officer, appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide its order dated 29.2.2012 passed in ITA No.1490/Hyd/2011 restored the issue involved in the appeal of the assessee relating to the investment made in the purchase of land to the Assessing Officer, with a direction to examine as to whether the relevant payments made by the assessee were towards purchase consideration or development charges. 3. As per the directions of the Tribunal, the Assessing Officer issued notice on 1.6.2012 requirimg the assessee to furnish the relevant details alongwith necessary supporting evidence. In reply, the following submission was made by the assessee- i) The land was originally ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 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 documentary evidence to support and substantiate the same. He held that the payments so made to the other persons other than the partners of M/s. SK Builders could not be considered as payments made towards the purchase of plot and accordingly, the amount of ₹ 66,22,500 was added by him to the total income of the assessee treating the same as unexplained investment in the order dated 22.3.2013 passed under S.143(3) read with S.254 of the Act. 4. Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under S.143(3) read with S.254, assessee again went in appeal before th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirmation letter issued by the partners of M/s. SK Builders for the first time before the learned CIT(A) was relied upon by him to give relief to the assessee without affording any opportunity to the Assessing Officer to verify the same. In this regard, the Learned Departmental Representative has invited our attention 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 ₹ 66,22,500 made by the Assessing Offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced at pages 14 and 15 of the paper-book is also undated and the same does not contain anything to show that the relevant confirmation letter was filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer alongwith the said letter. On the other hand, there is a clear mention made by the Assessing Officer on page 3 of the assessment order that the claim of the assessee of having paid the amount of ₹ 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 lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
