Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2022 (1) TMI 921

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 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 Rs. 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 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ee in ground No. 1 has challenged the validity of the 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 p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ncome from other source. No deduction allowable as per provision of the Act u/s.56 of Rs. 12,40,000/- [The ITS details are duplicate in nature, for the natural justice Rs. 12,40,000/- taken only]. Therefore, the difference amount of sale consideration of Rs. 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 pu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e, The claim of purchase expenditure of Rs. 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 Rs. 12,40,000/- is confirmed. The ground no.1 is dismissed. 9. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 10. The learned DR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 11. We have heard the learned DR and perused the materials available on record. In the case on hand, the basis for reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act was the information received about the sale of pr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... matter of verification. As the cost of Rs. 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 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 vital piece of evidence which cannot be denied on surmise and conjecture, particularly in the facts where such confirmation was also supported based on the allotment letter, ti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates