9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hase and construction of the property in question to AO who would make further inquiries if so needed. - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes. - I.T.A. No.2589/Ahd/2011 - - - Dated:- 24-9-2015 - SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR For The Respondent : -None- ORDER PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-V, Surat [ CIT(A) in short] dated 28/06/2011 pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 41,00,000/- made by the A.O. on a/c. of unaccounted investment u/s.69 of the Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored. 2. Briefly stated facts are that the case of the assessee was reopen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessee had actually purchased already constructed residential house property and not only land. But, it was disclosed that only land is purchased while property is being constructed after acquisition of land. This was an arrangement done so as to get housing loan because housing loan was not available otherwise. This can also be cross verified from the sanction letter of the Central Bank of India from where loan was taken. !t is clearly mentioned in the letter that loan is given for the construction of house. !f construction would not have been shown than bank loan was not available on the property. Also, at the time of purchase of house property the valuation of the land as per stamp valuation authority was ₹ 1,103 per Sq. Mtrs. The total area of the land purchased was 78.04 sq. mtrs. Hence, total value of the land as per stamp valuation authority at the time of purchase comes to ₹ 86,078 (78.04*Rs. 1,103) only. Further, as of now, the valuation of the property (Land along with constructed residential house) as per stamp valuation authority is ₹ 13,500 per sq. mtrs. So, total value of property comes to ₹ 10,53,540 (78.04*Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee claimed to have got house constructed had not worked anywhere else and Shri Amullakhbhai Matholia the vendor in his own statements had stated that the plot was purchased by him for ₹ 54,628/- as per document registered on 22/03/2005. Thereafter, he had made construction on this plot 2 years ago. As per the AO, the assessee had purchased fully constructed bungalow from the vendor. The AO, therefore, concluded that there was no need for making further construction and as such no construction activity was carried out. The transaction with the so-called contractor to be not genuine. The AO had given findings in paras-5.10 to 5.15 of his order which read as under:- 5.10. To ascertain the veracity, this office has called for the copy of bank account of following a. Shri Brijeshkumar Jarsaniya, with Bank of Baroda, Khand Bazar, Surat SB A/c.No.07390100011624. The bank statement is for the period of 09.02.2007 to 13.03.2009 and it closed on 13.03.2009. On 06.02.2009, in his account a cheque of ₹ 10,00,000/- was deposited which resulted in credit balance of ₹ 10,08,371/- but the account was debited by withdrawing cash ₹ 3,00,000/- on 07.02.2009, & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,000/- towards purchase of bunglow in his book of account as well as not disclosed the same in his return of income filed. Besides, the assessee s explanation is at all not satisfactory. Therefore, the value of the investment of ₹ 41,00,000/- is deemed to be the income of the assessee. As such, an addition of ₹ 41,00,000/- has been made in the total income as his unexplained investment u/s.69 of the I.T.Act. 4.2. The ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition by observing as under:- Decision 7. I have gone through the assessment order, remand report, the submissions of the app and sanction letter for housing loan of ₹ 10,00,000/- from Central Bank of India. The submissions of the app that there was an arrangement done so as to get housing loan because housing loan was not available otherwise. If construction would not have been shown then bank loan would not available on the property , appears to be correct. Further, no adverse comments against the submissions of the app have been made by the A.O. in his remand report as mentioned above. Even otherwise factually also the transactions relates to A.Y. 2009-10 not to A.Y. 2008-09 which is in questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
