9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment order dated 26/12/2011. In view of the aforesaid factual discussions, we are of the view that additions in the hand of the assessee is not justified, which were fully explained before ld CIT(A). The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. - I.T.A. No. 248/RPR/2019 - - - Dated:- 12-8-2021 - Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia, Accountant Member And Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri S.R. Rao, Advocate. For the Department : Shri R.K. Baral, DR ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Learned Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mation in AIR, the assessee purchased property of ₹ 1.31 crore. Despite giving so many opportunities the assessee has not complied with the said notices, accordingly the entire amount of consideration value of ₹ 1.31 crore was added to the income of the assessee vide assessment order dated 24/11/2018 passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144. 3. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee in its submission, submitted that Shri Raj Agrawal purchased the Flat No. 1704 in K-Wing of Reheja Vistas on 19/04/2010 and the assessee was shown as second owner. The entire investment was made by her husband. The assessee also stated that all these facts were explained vide letter dated 24/11/2018. The assessee also stated that similar actio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment order dated 26/12/2018 passed in the case of husband of the assessee. The AO in para-6 of his remand report stated that as the payments details in assessment order of assesses husband is not discussed, it is not clear whether he gave complete information to AO or not in alternative the AO stated that the share of assessee is ₹ 65,79,375/- 4. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee and remand report of AO held that in the case of husband of assessee, the payment details and sources of investment are not discussed the assessee is 50% shareholder of the flat/ property which remained to be explained and confirmed the addition to that extent, thereby confirmed the addition of ₹ 65,79,375/-. Furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee declared income of ₹ 61,01,271/-. On similar AIR information, the case of the husband of the assessee was also reopened on recording reasons that income chargeable to tax to the extent of ₹ 1.31 crore for investing in immovable property has escaped from assessment. The husband of the assessee contested reopening as explained hereinabove. The explanation furnished by the husband of the assessee was accepted and no addition in case of husband of the assessee. The ld.AR submits that assessee has explained complete facts before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) despite recording of submissions and instead of deleting the addition confirmed 50% of the additions by taking a view that payment details and source of investment are no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ICICI Bank Cheque ₹ 500000/- F.Y.09 2 Raj Agrawal ICICI Bank Cheque ₹ 2131750 F.Y. 09 3 Raj Agrawal ICICI Bank Cheque ₹ 1754061/- F.Y. 10 4 Raj Agrawal ICICI Bank Cheque ₹ 7016244/- F.Y. 11 5 Raj Agrawal ICICI Bank Cheque ₹ 1801929/- F.Y. 12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 13203984 10. From the aforesaid details which are duly supported by the statement of accounts of husband of assessee, we find that the entire payment of sale consideration of flat in dispute was paid by the husband of assessee. We further noted that similar issue was examined by the AO/ACIT-35, Mumbai and accepted the similar explanation for reopening of case and no addition was made in the assessment order dated 26/12/2011. In view of the aforesaid factual discussions, we are of the view that additions in the hand of the assessee is not justified, which were fully explained before ld CIT(A). 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the grounds of appeal rais ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
