9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 921X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs under the provisions of section 147 of the Act on account of escapement of income. Accordingly, we confirm the initiation of the proceedings under section 147 of the Act and dismissed the ground of appeal of the assessee. Addition on account of sale of property and taxing the same as income from other sources without deducting the corresponding expenses - The assessee has produced copy of letter of delivery of title paper of flats, allotment letter, possession letter of flats and no due certificated and the confirmation from the builder. To our understanding, the onus was shifted from the assessee to the revenue to reject the confirmation filed by the assessee based on cogent reasons. The confirmation from the builder is one of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al: 1. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case by confirming the action of Id. AO in reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the action of reopening is without jurisdiction and not permissible either in law or on facts. The present proceedings, therefore, are required to be quashed. 2. The Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the action of Id. AO in making addition of ₹ 12,40,0007- u/s 56 of the Act on account undisclosed income derived from sale of immovable property. 3. Both the Id. Authorities have erred in law and on facts of the case in appreciating the fact that what could have been taxed wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment framed under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act. 5. In the present case, the reopening was made by the AO under the provisions of section 147 of the Act on account of escapement of income from the sale of 2 flats. The AO based on the AIR/ITS information came to know that the assessee has sold 2 flats but there was no return filed by him. Accordingly, the proceedings were initiated under section 147 of the Act. Admittedly, the assessee has not filed the return of income for the year under consideration under the provisions of section 139 of the Act. Thus, in such a situation there remains no remedy with the Department except to initiate the proceedings under the provisions of section 147 of the Act on account of es ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No deduction allowable as per provision of the Act u/s.56 of ₹ 12,40,000/- [The ITS details are duplicate in nature, for the natural justice ₹ 12,40,000/- taken only]. Therefore, the difference amount of sale consideration of ₹ 12,40,000/- added back to the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration. 8. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A) who also confirmed the order of the AO by observing as under: The remand report and the rejoinder by the appellant have been considered. The appellant has not been filing return of income. During remand proceedings the appellant has claimed that the total sale proceeds have been brought to tax. The appellant desired that the purchase ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered all the documents filed in paper book(1-50) and reach to the conclusion that the onus has not been discharged by the appellant in spite of adequate opportunity as per principle of natural justice, has been granted. The appellant is real estate broker and doing business for many years. No case law has been relied by the appellant on the issue, The claim of purchase expenditure of ₹ 11,00,000/- is not being allowed, as the onus has not been discharged by the appellant. In view of facts as recorded above and circumstances of the case, I am constrained to agree with the AO and decide not to interfere. The addition: u/s.56 of ₹ 12,40,000/- is confirmed. The ground no.1 is dismissed. 9. Being aggrieved by the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 12,40,000/- represents the gross sale consideration against the flats which cannot be brought to tax without allowing the corresponding expenses. The assessee in the case on hand has claimed ₹ 11 lakhs as the cost of acquisition of such flats which was sold for ₹ 12,40,000/- which was purported to be incurred in cash. Admittedly, the cost of acquisition for the flat is the subject matter of verification. As the cost of ₹ 11 lakhs was incurred in cash, there lies a heavy burden upon the assessee to justify the same based on documentary evidence. In the present case, the assessee has produced copy of letter of delivery of title paper of flats, allotment letter, possession letter of flats and no due certificated and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
