9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1299X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e argument of the AR that the amount is met out of the own savings of the assessee and cannot be treated as unexplained investment. AO has merely stated that the savings from salary earned in the previous years is not acceptable and hence could not be treated as investment in the immovable properties. AO has considered a surplus balance available with the assessee Rs. 13 lakhs out of the salary income of Rs. 18 lakhs earned during the current Financial Year but has failed to appreciate the fact that the similar savings shall be available with the assessee for the earlier assessment years. We are of the considered view that the mere assumption of the AO that the assessee was not having sufficient accumulated cash balances out of the salar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the view that there is a sufficient and reasonable cause for not filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the prescribed time limit and hence we hereby condone the delay of 31 days and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Director in M/s. Yugaandhar Housing Private Limited filed his return of income on 31/3/2017 declaring a total income of Rs.20,86,110/-. A search and seizure operation u/s. 132 of the Act was conducted in the group cases of M/s. Yugaandhar Housing Private Limited and others on 25/10/2017 including the residence of the assessee. Consequent to the search notice U/s. 153C of the Act calling for return of income was issued to the assessee and served on 11/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have noticed that the Assessing Officer is not justified in making the additions towards unexplained investment in land as the sources for the same is out of earlier period savings in salary derived from Yugaandhar Housing Private Limited and also current year salary. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have noticed that the Assessing Officer is not correct and erred in not considering that the appellant is regular income tax assessee filing the returns of income. 5. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a salaried employee deriving income of Rs. 18 lakhs as salary from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
