9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 491X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the transaction mentioned at Sl No 2. Therefore the unexplained investments in the properties computed by the Assessing Officer are excess by ₹ 3,90,000/- which needs to be deleted. The issue has been considered by the Ld. CIT (A) in detail and an amount of ₹ 3,90,000/-is deleted. Before me, no further materials were produced in order to justify the claim of the assessee. - Decided against assessee. Non-consideration of the opening cash balance - assessee has claimed an amount of ₹ 2,88,000/- as the opening cash available with him for making the investment rejected by AO - Held that:- We do not subscribe to view of the Revenue. Any individual will definitely have some accumulated amount with him especially when such i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have deleted the entire addition made under the caption unaccounted investments in purchase of properties. 1.2. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) failed to note that the assessee had explained the sources for the entire investment and a cash flow statement was also filed in support thereof. Therefore no portion of the investment is to be treated as unexplained or unaccounted. 2. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in treating the loan repayment as unaccounted in a summary manner. 3. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in fixing the agricultural income at a meager ₹ 1,50,000/- as against ls.2,00, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ducted on 03.09.2009 in the business premises of the assessee wherein certain documents and books of accounts were found. Thereafter, the AO reopened the assessment u/s.147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s.148 and completed the assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act on 30/12/2011 wherein the ld. Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 10,71,500/- on account of unaccounted investments. 4.1 Ground No.1 The purchase price of the property invested in item No.2. The Ld. Assessing Officer had arrived at ₹ 9,37,000/- as the unexplained source for purchase of properties by observing as under:- As per the Appraisal Report received from DD1y ation) Chennai the assessee along with on Shri Peer Mohammed has made the following tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i.e. property at Mannur village for ₹ 6,90,000I- it is only sale agreement and not sale deed towards purchase. The sale agreement was executed on 07-7-2003 in respect of the above property and the sale deed for the same was executed on 17-1 0-2003 and hence this should not be taken in to account as the value as per the sale deed dated 17-10-2003 in respect of the same property is already taken into account. However, while going through the document dated 07-7-2003 and document dated 17-10-2003 it is found that the door no. mentioned in the two documents are different as per the survey report i.e. document registered on 07-7-2003 is door no.25/14 and document registered on 17-10-2003 is 26. To verify this the document pertaining t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these documents the door numbers are mentioned as 26 only. In fact document dated 07.07.2003 contained the door no.26 while that that of the document dated 17.10.2003 contained the door no.26/14 (and not 25/14 as contemplated by the Assessing Officer) Further,.as expiained by the assessee, the agreement dated 07.07.2003 was to purchase the property of 1500 sq.ft located at No 87, Mannur village Manickkam Pillai st, survey no 14/3, door no 26 for ₹ 6,90,000/- from Shri Y.Ummar and shri Y.Saifudden. Later on the sellers also took the possession of another 337.5 sq.ft of land in the same door number from Ms. S. Selvi (which was under disputes earlier) and made a combined sale deed for 1800 sq.ft on 17 102003 by showing the total sale con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he arguments of both the parties and perusing the materials on record, I find that the issue has been considered by the Ld. CIT (A) in detail and an amount of ₹ 3,90,000/-is deleted. Before me, no further materials were produced in order to justify the claim of the assessee. Therefore, I hereby confirm the order of the Ld. CIT (A). Accordingly this issue is decided against the assessee. 5.1 Ground No. 2 Non-consideration of the opening cash balance of ₹ 2,88,000/-. The assessee has claimed an amount of ₹ 2,88,000/- as the opening cash available with him for making the investment. The Revenue rejected the claim of the assessee while arriving at the source of investment. I do not subscribe to this view of the Revenue. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
