9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iving proper opportunity to substantiate his case and to prove the source of investment. Assessing Officer has committed gross violation in coming to the conclusion that the investment made by the assessee is not a genuine transaction. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, find that the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 69 cannot be sustained. Insofar as, the claim of savings of ₹ 2,28,000/- is concerned, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has already given relief of ₹ 1.5 lakhs, hence, find that the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is justified and no interfere is called for. In view of the above, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. - ITA No. 305/VIZ/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... et rate of ₹ 24,94,600/- vide two sale deeds registered as document Nos. 2719/2005 and 2720/2005 respectively. The transactions i.e. both purchase and sale did not find place in cash flow statement submitted along with the return of income. Therefore, assessee was asked to explain the source of investment. The assessee vide his letter dated 23/10/2012 submitted that the source of investment as follows:- a) From out of proceeds realized on sale of vacant site vide document No. 1722/2004 dated 22/04/2004 ₹ 4 lakhs; b) From out of funds received against agreement for sale of property ₹5 lakhs; c) From out of savings ₹ 2,28,000/-. The Assessing Officer after examining the details filed by the assessee only accepted the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned, the Assessing Officer has noted that no material was produced to support his claim, hence, the same is added unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act and the assessment was completed under the head income from other sources . 3. Being aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). It was submitted before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that the Assessing Officer has not given any opportunity to cross examine Sri Nallamilli Veerabhaskara Reddy and also the document writer Sri J. Sadashiva Reddy. Without giving opportunity to the assessee and without following proper procedure, assessment was completed, therefore, prayed that addition may be deleted. 4. The Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consider it would be reasonable to allow ₹ 1.5 lakh towards such plea taking into account the income declared by the assessee for the subject year. 5. So far as the claim of savings of ₹ 2,28,000/- is concerned, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has allowed ₹ 1.5 lakhs and the remaining balance, the order of the Assessing Officer has been confirmed. 6. I have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The only issue for consideration before me is that the source of investment made by the assessee in respect of purchase of the property. The case of the assessee is that he entered into an agreement with Sri Nallamilli Veerabhaskara ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase, the alleged party Sri Nallamilli Veerabhaskara Reddy is a crucial party, the Assessing Officer ought to have given opportunity to the assessee to produce before him. Such an opportunity has not been given to the assessee. Even the Assessing Officer has examined the document writer Sri J. Sadashiva Reddy and no opportunity was given to the assessee to cross examination him. Therefore, I find that the Assessing Officer has made an enquiry behind back of the assessee without following proper procedure and without giving proper opportunity to substantiate his case and to prove the source of investment. Therefore, I find that the Assessing Officer has committed gross violation in coming to the conclusion that the investment made by the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
