9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 580X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on revenue to corroborate the same particularly when the assessee vehemently denied having made any cash payment to the concerned party, Further, considering cash payment, the value of the property far exceeded the stamp duty valuation. Therefore, finding the conclusions of Ld. CIT(A) quite logical, we dismiss revenue’s appeal. - I.T.A. No. 1710/Mum/2013 And I.T.A. No. 7349/Mum/2014 - - - Dated:- 8-12-2017 - SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM For The Assessee : Ritika Agarwal, Ld. AR For The Revenue : Suman Kumar, Ld.DR ORDER Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. The captioned appeal by assessee as well as revenue arises out of invocation of revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th Mrs. Rachna M. Saney. The said shop was purchased for total consideration of ₹ 86 Lacs from Gayatri Homes , an entity belonging to Siddhi Group of Cases who was subjected to search action u/s 132 on 19/02/2009. The perusal of seized papers revealed that the out of ₹ 86 Lacs, the agreement was for ₹ 36.40 Lacs and the balance amount was paid in cash. It was further stated that the information was received by Ld. AO on 10/04/2012 i.e. well after completion of assessment u/s 143(3) and therefore, Ld.AO contended that income to the tune of ₹ 25 Lacs was not brought to tax in the assessment order. 2.3 Consequently, a show-cause notice u/s 263 dated 14/11/2012 was issued and the assessee was confronted with th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts placed in the paper book submitted by assessee. Per Contra , Ld. Departmental Representative [DR] contended that the provisions u/s 263 were meant to make up for the errors / omissions which took place while framing the assessment and therefore, the jurisdiction was rightly invoked by Ld. CIT since it was noticed on the basis of seized material that the assessee made cash payment towards purchase of the shop which was not taken into account while framing the original assessment order. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the relevant material on record. At this juncture, we are required to examine whether the twin conditions viz. erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as envisaged by Section 263 were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Lacs u/s 69 towards her share of unexplained investment and another addition of ₹ 37.50 Lacs on protective basis to account for unexplained investment of the co-owner. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee contested the same with success before Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 12/09/2014 where Ld. CIT(A), after considering assessee s submissions, allowed the appeal by making following observations:- 2.26. I have gone through the order of the Assessing Officer and submission made for the appellant as well. On appreciation of the facts of the case, it is seen that the AO had provided an opportunity to the assessee to cross examine the said Shri Kantilal Patel, a partner in M/s Gayatri Homes. Subsequently in the course of cross examination, he re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uation of the said shop is ₹ 30,11,000/- as evidenced by purchase deed. The said valuation is far less than the total consideration of ₹ 36,40,000/- as paid by cheque and mentioned in sale deed. Therefore, the alleged cash payment of ₹ 50 lakhs would make the consideration of the property as ₹ 86.40 lakhs which is more than double of the stamp office valuation. Such a conclusion is farfetched considering the stamp duty valuation. Hence, even on valuation front there is no occasion with the AO to further assume a payment of ₹ 50 lacs in cash as that would make valuation of property abnormally high and irrational. 2.28 Thus, there remains absolutely no basis for making any addition in the case of the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
