9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,80,000/- without proper and reasonable evidence. Ground No. 3 is general in nature. 3. Facts leading to the present appeal are that the Assessing Officer (AO) has served a notice u/s. 148 Income Tax Act [Act] by affixture and completed proceedings of assessment, wherein an amount of Rs. 4,80,000/- has been brought to tax stating as under: "Unexplained Investment: As per the information, stated above, it was noticed that the assessee had purchased 2 plots admeasuring 300 and 301 sq.yards and paid Rs. 2,10,000/- (Rs.1,20,000/- by cash and Rs. 90,000/- by cheque) and Rs. 2,10,000/- (Rs. 1,20,000/- by cash and Rs. 90,000/- by cheque) respectively from Manasa Estates. The assessee v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been filing regularly his returns of income. The address mentioned in the various assessment years are furnished below: Asst. Year Date of filing of the Return of income Address mentioned therein 2005-06 21-12-2005 8-2-686/8/2, Road No.12, Banjara Hills 2006-07 30-11-2006 8-2-686/8/2, Road No.12, Banjara Hills 2007-08 27-03-2008 8-2-686/8/2, Road No.12, Banjara Hills 2008-09 14-08-2008 8-2-686/8/2, Road No.12, Banjara Hills 2009-10 24-09-2009 8-2-686/8/2, Road No.12, Banjara Hills 2010-11 08-02-2011 8-2-686/8/2, Road No.12, Banjara Hills 2011-12 11-01-2012 Plot No.48, Kavuri Hills, I-Phase, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad 2012-13 06-12-2012 Plot No.48, Kavuri Hills, I-Phase, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant cooperated in completion of the assessment after receiving the notice u/s 142(1) dated 6-09-2012. 4.2 In this connection, kind attention of the Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) is invited to the above following decisions of various judicial authorities. i. ITAT Delhi in the case of Chandra Agencies Vs.ITO - 89 ITD 1 ii. Commissioner of income-tax Vs. Naveen Chander (323 ITR 49) (copy of the above order is enclosed) 4.3 It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) be pleased to cancel the assessment, in the above circumstances of the case. 5.1 Without prejudice to the above contention, it is submitted that the learned Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 4,80,000 with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invited to the third para at page 3 of the Sale Deed, which is reproduced below for convenience: (All the sale deeds contain the same matter, mentioned above, except the quantum of consideration.) "THAT IN PURSUANCE of the aforesaid offer and acceptance the Vendee has already paid the entire sale consideration of Rs. 90,000/-(Rupees Ninty thousand only) received through M/s Janmabhoomi Estates, and thus the Vendor hereby admits and acknowledges the receipt of the entire sale amount having received from the Vendee.............. " 5.5 The learned Assessing Officer did not notice the fact mentioned in the Sale deed that the consideration was received through M/s Janmabhoomi Estates. 5.6 It is submitted that the learned Assessing Office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of assessee was 8-2-686/8/2, Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. The same address was also stated in the sale deeds placed on record. From where the AO got the address of 195/A, Road No. 13, White House, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad was not known. How it was the last known address was not answered by the Ld.CIT(A), who examined the record as stated in para 8.2, while confirming on merits. Since the procedure followed for affixture of notice is not proper, following the principles laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Chandra Agencies Vs. ITO [89 ITD 1] (Del) and the Hon'ble Panjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Naveen Chander [323 ITR 49], assessment completed in pursuance of an invalid note is not valid. 7.1. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
