9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 723X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion for reopening the assessment vide application dated 20/12/2016. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Income Tax officer in addition of Rs. 14,00,000/- on accounts of unexplained investment without considering facts of the case. 4. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that not providing opportunity to the appellant for cross examination of the party on whose statement is relied 1)4 assessing officer. Amounts violation of natural justice. 5. The learned CIT(A) failed to see that agreement for Rs. 22,75,500/- does not exist on the record. On the assessing officer as same was not provided to the appellant; despite of asking the same. 3. The brief facts of the case for deciding the present appeal as emanating from the record are: The assessee is an individual and has filed the return of income on 23.07.2009 declaring total income of Rs. 2,16,526. On 25 October 2008 (during the relevant assessment year), the assessee along with her husband purchased flat from Saraswati Devi Ramji Lal trust as "Owner" and Sashwat Construwell Pvt Ltd. as "Developer" for a total consideration of Rs. 41,00,000. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngly, the case is proposed to be re-opened for the A.Y. 2009-10. 4. Notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is to be issued after obtaining the approval of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-19, Mumbai." 5. Assessee vide letter dated 20 December 2016 objected to the initiation of reassessment proceedings and submitted that the information relied upon by the AO for initiating the reassessment proceedings is incorrect as the assessee had purchased the flat vide agreement dated 25 October 2018 for a total consideration of Rs. 41,00,000 instead of Rs. 22,75,500 as alleged by the AO. The assessee further submitted that the entire consideration of Rs. 41,00,000 was paid by the assessee by way of cheque (loan to an extent of Rs. 30,00,000 was availed by the assessee from Kotak Mahindra Bank and balance of Rs. 11,00,000 was paid through cheque). The assessee denied to have made a payment of Rs. 14,00,000 in cash as extra consideration for purchasing the flat. The assessee also sought the copy of agreement dated 25 October 2008 as relied upon by the assessing officer in its reasons for initiating the reassessment proceedings. The assessee also requested for statement recorded of Mr Ak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under section 143(2) of the Act, inter-alia, regarding the property owned by the assessee. After considering the details filed by the assessee, the AO vide order dated 29 August 2011 passed under section 143(3) of the Act accepted the return filed by the assessee. Subsequently, the AO initiated the reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act by placing reliance upon the statement of Director of M/s Bhoomi Group, Mr Akshay Doshi recorded under section 131 of the Act. In the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, the AO alleged that vide agreement dated 25 October 2008 assessee has purchased a flat whose agreement value is Rs. 22,75,500. Further, in the statement of Mr Akshay Doshi recorded under section 131 of the Act, copy of which was provided to the assessee, it was alleged that flat was purchased by the assessee vide agreement dated 25 October 2008 having agreement value of Rs. 22,75,500 and cash component of Rs. 14,00,000. However, despite request by the assessee, copy of agreement dated 25 October 2008, as referred in the reasons for reopening the assessment, was not provided to the assessee. The CIT(A), dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, inter- alia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt value of Rs. 41,00,000 would have been paid." It is well established that the reasons recorded by the AO cannot be further be substituted or added or deleted. Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd v/s R.B.Wadkar: 268 ITR 332 observed as under: "It is needless to mention that the reasons are required to be read as they were recorded by the Assessing Officer. No substitution or deletion is permissible. No additions can be made to those reasons. No inference can be allowed to be drawn based on reasons not recorded. It is for the Assessing Officer to disclose and open his mind through reasons recorded by him. He has to speak through his reasons. .................................... The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer cannot be supplemented by filing affidavit or making oral submission, otherwise, the reasons which were lacking in the material particulars would get supplemented, by the time the matter reaches to the Court, on the strength of affidavit or oral submissions advanced." Thus, we are of the view that the reference to market value of the flat as determined by stamp duty valuation authority also cannot justify initiation of reasse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
