9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 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, assessment completed in pursuance of an invalid note is not valid. Even on merits, it is not clear how the information was received, the basis of the same as assessee was not given any opportunity. Neither the so called statement was furnished nor the cross-examination of the person was provided. Even the Ld.CIT(A) did not examine how the said ‘Manasa Estates’ came into picture when the document indicates that the monies were received through ‘Janmabhoomi Estates’. Since the very basis for addition is not reliable, the addition per se cannot be sustained. - Decided in favour of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. All lands/properties held by him 2. Details of the lands/properties purchased from M/s. Manasa Estates along with copies of sale deeds, 3. Details/documentary evidences regarding, extent, cost of plot total payments, date/year of payment, mode of payment etc., In response, the assessee furnished the details of properties purchased during the year and also receipts and payments account explaining the sources for investment. On verification of the details, it is seen that the assessee has purchased three plots of 600 sq. yds., 300 sq. yds and 300 sq. yds from Manasa Estates. The assessee has explained sources to the extent of the cheques paid for purchase of the plots. As per the information available the assessee has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 2. As mentioned in the statement of facts, the assessee received a notice u/s. 142(1) dated 6-9-2012, requiring, inter alia, compliance with the notice u/s 148 dated 22-3-2012. The address given on this notice u/s. 142(1) is as under: I.Prabhakar Reddy, s/o I.Bapu Reddy, H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ities. 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 ₹ 4,80,000 with the following observation: As per the information available the assessee has paid cash of ₹ 400 per sq.yards. to Manasa Estates. The assessee has purchased 1200 sq.yds and has paid cash of ₹ 4,80,000/-. As the assessee failed to exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 32,000 @ 440 per sq. yard 5.4 Kind attention of the Hon'ble Commissioner of Incometax(Appeals) is 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 ₹ 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not the address of assessee, neither in the past nor later. As seen from the written submissions and the copies placed on record of returns filed, the address 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&# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
