9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 681X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uction carried out during the financial year 2009-10 relevant to impugned assessment year, there is no question of any investment made in such property during the year and question of any unexplained investment made during the year under consideration, as so stated in the reasons so recorded, thus, doesn t arise for consideration. Where the very basis for which reassessment proceedings were initiated doesn t survive, there is no basis for making the impugned addition towards failure to substantiate the cost of construction so claimed by the assessee. We find that the cost of construction is supported by the Valuer report which has determined the cost of constriction applying the PWD rates at ₹ 713,150/- as against cost of construction claimed by the assessee amounting to ₹ 639,000/-. In the result, the addition made is hereby deleted and the matter is decided in favour of the assessee. - ITA No. 1061/JP/2019 - - - Dated:- 20-7-2020 - Shri Vijay Pal Rao, JM And Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, AM For the Assessee : Sh. K. L. Moolchandani For the Revenue : Smt. Rooni Pal (DCIT) ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see. Subsequently, the statement of assessee s husband, Sh. Manish Dhameja was recorded u/s 131 and thereafter, the assessee filed the revised return on 30.12.2011 declaring short term capital loss of ₹ 21,280/- against the sale of the aforesaid property. While computing the short term capital loss, the assessee has claimed the cost of land of ₹ 8,82,280/- and construction cost of ₹ 6,39,000/- against the full value of consideration of ₹ 15,00,000/-. Thereafter, notice u/s 148 was issued by the Assessing officer stating that the income to the extent of ₹ 2,90,317/-, being the unexplained investment amounting to ₹ 2,89,000/- made by the assessee in the year under consideration, has escaped assessment and the reasons so recorded reads as under:- The assessee has filed his return of income on 25.03.2011 at total income of ₹ 1,76,040/-. Further assessee filed a revised on 30.12.2011 at total income of ₹ 1,86,800/- declaring short term capital loss of ₹ 21,280/- against sale of immovable property bearing address D-427, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. The transaction was not reflected in the original return of income filed on 25.03.2011. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustained by invocation of section 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly to this, ground of appeal is dismissed. Against the aforesaid findings of the ld CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. In Ground No. 1, the assessee has challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings. In this regard, the ld. AR submitted that the notice u/s 148 has been issued in the name of Sh. Manish Dhameja, husband of the assessee and the same being a fatal mistake cannot be cured u/s 292B of the Act and therefore, for this reason alone, notice u/s 148 and subsequent proceedings should be quashed. It was further submitted that re-assessment proceedings were initiated to assess the escaped income of ₹ 2,89,000/- on account of unexplained investments. However, no addition has been made by the Assessing Officer towards any unexplained investment. Therefore, the very reason for which re-assessment proceedings were initiated were found satisfactorily explained and no addition has been made, than in such a scenario, any other addition made by the Assessing Officer by way of disallowance of the cost of construction cannot be sustained. 6. In Ground No. 2, the assessee has chal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entire investment of ₹ 15,21,280/- made in the sold property stood fully and satisfactorily explained vide letter dated 4.12.2017. The ld. AO had however turned down such explanation on the plea that such working was not given while filing the Return originally. The ld. CIT (A) did not take note of this explanation and the copy of valuation report etc. and had proceeded entirely on different line without giving any finding on these facts figures. The ld. CIT (A) had confirmed the addition of ₹ 6,17,720/-under section 69 of the Act as unexplained investment in construction works ignoring the vital fact that such investment was made out of the bank loan of ₹ 10,50,000/- plus the amounts received from her husband and father-in-law. The above claim of the appellant was never questioned by the Revenue (rather accepted by the ld. CIT (A) in her above findings). Thus the addition so confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) was factually and legally incorrect and deserved to be deleted summarily. As the entire investment in the said property stood explained to the satisfaction of the ld. AO, no addition was rightly made by the ld. AO u/s 69 of the Act. The ld. CIT (A) had failed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osition in the case of assessee has been clearly stated wherein she has sold the aforesaid property bearing D-427, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. The reason also talks about the original and revised return filed by her. The details of the returned income as well as the date of filing has been clearly mentioned which is not disputed by the assessee. It was further submitted that PAN No. of the assessee was also clearly stated in the reasons so recorded. The name of the husband of the assessee has been wrongly mentioned and the same cannot be a basis to hold re-assessment proceedings as bad in law. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A) have given the finding that such a mistake being typographical mistake can be rectified u/s 292B of the Act and the said findings should be confirmed and the contentions advanced by the ld. AR should be dismissed. Further, on merits, she relied on the findings of the lower authorities and submitted that since the assessee has failed to file any evidence towards cost of construction as well as source of such investment, the addition has been rightly made by the Assessing Officer and which has been confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). She ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
