9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 826X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for the other half investment in the said property, the entire investment to ₹ 30,29,000/- was rightly considered to be unexplained in the hand of the assessee. Therefore, CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition in dispute, which does not need any interference on my part, therefore, uphold the action of the CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and reject the grounds raised by the Assessee. - ITA No. 3814/Del/2018 - - - Dated:- 1-1-2019 - Sh. H.S. Sidhu, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Sh. Anoop Sharma, Advocate Sh. Sanjay Parashar, Advocate For the Department : Sh. SL Anuragi, Sr. DR. ORDER This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the Order da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stances in failing to appreciate that valid service of notice u/s 148 of I.T. Act, whereas no supporting evidence has been brought on record to prove validity of service ,mere issuance of notice itself, does not tantamount to valid service as per law. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A), also erred in law, on facts and in surrounding circumstances in failing to appreciate the that sale consideration is to the tune of ₹ 1500000 and not ₹ 3029000 (being only a value for stamp duty purposes). 7. That the Ld. CIT(A), further erred in law, on facts and in surrounding circumstances in failing to appreciate that ₹ 3029000 (being only a value for stamp duty purposes) cannot be treated as sale consideration wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee at ₹ 30,29,000/- by making the addition of ₹ 30,29,000/- in the hands of the assessee. Against the assessment order, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 30.3.2018 has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved with the impugned order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. During the hearing, Ld. counsel for the assessee has stated that the impugned order is arbitrary and passed by overlooking incurable fundamental errors of law, leading to miscarriage of justice. It was further submitted that A.O. was not having any tangible and specific material such as, the sale deed in question except vague AIR information at the time of forming opinion, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d upon the assessee within the time limit prescribed. It is also noted that the entire source of investment in the impugned property is out of the money received from her husband and the assessee has failed to explain the source of investment. The assessee has failed to prove the nexus between the cash available to her husband and the cash used by her for the investment in the impugned property. It was further noted that the husband of the assessee has deposited an amount of ₹ 10 lacs in cash in his bank account. In any case any money available with her husband has nothing to do with the investment made by the assessee. Since no evidence was furnished for the other half investment in the said property, the entire investment to ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
