9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any revised return. Even though the proceedings were completed by issuance of notices to assessee and examining the issues, technically, the assessment has to be completed only U/s. 144, as provided in sub-section 1(a). We do not find any merit in the ground. Accordingly, this ground is rejected. - ITA No. 1362, 1363/Hyd/2015 - - - Dated:- 18-1-2017 - Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member And Shri B. Ramakotaiah, Accountant Member For Assessee : Shri K.C. Devdas, AR For Revenue : Shri K.J. Rao, DR ORDER Per B. Ramakotaiah, A. M. These two appeals are by assessee against the order(s) of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Hyderabad for AYs. 2002-03 2004-05 dated 22-09-2015 and 10-09-2015 respectively. 2. Briefly stated facts are that assessee is a Managing Director of M/s. R.K. Township Promoters (P) Limited and also partner in M/s. Aar Kay Real Estates. There were search and seizure operations in the business and residential premises of assessee on 12-12-2005. Proceedings U/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A were completed on 31-12-2007, accepting the incomes returned. Consequent to the affidavit filed before the Returning Officer, while contesting the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er and assigns up to the schedule of the property absolutely and forever. Therefore, the A.O. clearly held that the payment was made in cash of ₹ 1,25,500 on or before 16-02-2002 and the contention of the assessee that the amount was still payable as on 31-03-2002 was incorrect. As the sources for ₹ 1,25,500 were not explained by the assessee, the same was brought to tax u/s 69 of the IT Act, 1961. 5. During the course of appeal proceedings, the appellant while explaining the facts of the case, submitted that the site admeasuring 697 Sq.Mts at Kothwalguda, Hyderabad, was purchased for consideration of ₹ 1,25,500 through Sale Deed dated 16-02-2002. During the appeal proceedings, the appellant submitted completely different explanation stating that the appellant was to receive an amount of ₹ 58,49,695 from M/s R.K.Township promoters (P) Limited and the amount of ₹ 1,29,500 (Rs.1,25,500 - sale consideration plus ₹ 4,000 - registration charges) was to be adjusted against the amount receivable from the company RKTPPL. As per the copy of sale deed, the property at Kothwalguda was purchased from Smt. Madcluluri Bala Kondamma W/o Shri Maddul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 02.12.03 19,44,000 2 M.B. Kondamma (M.M Kondaiah Joint) Sy. no. 126, 127, Doyen chambers, Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad 1200 sft 02.12.03 12,96,000 h. The above property was registered in the name of appellant and his wife Smt. M.B. Kondamma vide document dated 02.12.2003. The registered value of the property was ₹ 32,40,000 and the registration charges were ₹ 2,41,900. Thus the total investment was ₹ 34,81,900. The amount contributed by Smt. Kondamma and Sri M. Male' Kondaiah were as under: i. Amount contributed by Smt. Bala Kondamma ₹ 14,24,000 ii. Amount contributed by Sri M. Mala Kondaiah ₹ 20,57,900 i. The investment made by Smt. Kondamma of ₹ 14,24,000 was verified in the original scrutiny proceedings and the sources for investment were satisfactorily explained and no addition was made on this account. j. However with reference to investment made by Sri M. Malakondaiah of ₹ 20,57,900, during original assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s.153A the assessee had shown investment o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of ₹ 20,57,900. In the reconstructed Balance Sheet to explain sources for unaccounted investment of ₹ 5,57,000 the appellant simply increased other advances on liabilities side from ₹ 46,50,000 to ₹ 58,48,400. Admittedly the appellant did not maintain any books of account and the appellant has been constructing and reconstructing Balance Sheet based on the bank accounts to suit his requirements. The increase in 'other advances' in reconstructed Balance Sheet is nothing but balancing figure to take care of increase in investment of ₹ 5,57,000 . 7. Ld. Counsel referring to the reconciliation statement has submitted that there are many other investments also which were disclosed by assessee in the revised statement which were accepted by the AO and no addition has been made, whereas the addition was only restricted to the amounts of discrepancy in the Doyen Chambers. It was his submission that AO/CIT(A) should have accepted the revised Balance Sheet filed explaining the amounts. 8. Ld. DR, however, submitted that assessee s explanation is a make believe one and cannot be accepted as he has not disclosed the investments in the property ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r fully considered the information available on record during original scrutiny assessment proceedings, issued the show cause notice during reassessment proceedings, considered the reply of the assessee which forms part of assessment order, thereafter made assessment U/s. 144 r.w.s. 147. I do not see any infirmity in mentioning the section as 144 as the assessee did not file the return of income in response to notice U/s. 148. Even otherwise the assessment made after following due procedure of law cannot be held in valid by mere mentioning of Sec. 144 instead of 143. Therefore these two grounds of appeal are dismissed . 11. After considering the rival contentions, we do not find any merit in the ground raised by assessee. Even though a notice U/s. 147 was issued, assessee has not filed any revised return. Even though the proceedings were completed by issuance of notices to assessee and examining the issues, technically, the assessment has to be completed only U/s. 144, as provided in sub-section 1(a). We do not find any merit in the ground. Accordingly, this ground is rejected. 12. In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
