9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 349X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ormation so. Even inquiries conducted by the AO from the sub Registrars office revealed no information relating to this transaction.Assessee on the other hand we find repeatedly asserted that the two transactions reported in the ITS were relating to one and same transaction of purchase of immoveable property - The other transaction being different has all along being denied by the assessee. CIT(A)'s inference that the second transaction related to sale of the immoveable property was also demonstrated by the assessee to be incorrect who had pointed out that the said property had in fact been sold in A.Y 2012-13 and not the impugned year ,and capital gains earned thereon by the assessee returned to tax. The explanation was substantiated with copy of return of income for A.Y 2012-13 reflecting capital gains therein. Assessee had pointed out how the two transactions reflected in the ITS pertained to one transaction of purchase of immoveable property, pointing out the same registration no. mentioned against the two transactions in the ITS and also pointing out that based on the stamp duty paid by the assessee on the property purchased ,the value of the second transaction refle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iating the facts that assessing officer has conceded in the remand report that he did not possess any documentary evidences except the ITS information with regard to the entry of ITS Rs.43,41,358/- 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter the aforesaid grounds of appeal at the time of hearing, if the need arise. 3. At the outset, ld.counsel for the assessee stated that addition confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) on account capital gain earned by the assessee on alleged sale of property during the impugned is grossly unjustified and against the facts of the case, and has been made despite repeated assertion of the assessee that the Individual Transaction Statement (ITS) information in the possession of the Revenue authority, on the basis of which addition was made, related to one and same transaction which was repeated twice in the statement. That therefore the interpretation of the Ld.CIT(A) in treating the two transactions reported in the ITS as distinct and pertaining to purchase and sale of the same property during the impugned year was grossly incorrect on facts. 4. Drawing our attention to the facts of the case, the ld.counsel for the assessee pointed out that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompleted u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of I.T. Act,1961. The appellant has submitted affidavit during assessment proceedings(para 5) saying that there was no transaction of property for Rs.43,41,358/-. The AO has not discharged onus by verifying the contention raised in the said affidavit. 3. You are directed to send evidences of investment/sale for which addition of Rs.43,41,358/- has been made within 15 days from receipt of this letter. 4.2 Consequently, the AO has forwarded remand report and the cc-are reproduced as under: During the course of assessment proceedings, notice u/s.133(6) was issued to the Sub- Registrar, Ahmedabad on 23/10/2010. Subsequently, a reminder was also issued on 29/11/2018. However, the information has not been received from the Sub-Registrar: The assessee was also requested to furnish the copy of registration document respect of purchase and sale of immovable properties as mentioned above. However the assessee has furnished only the copy of the purchase deed. The value of purchase of the property in the said purchase deed has been shown at Rs.30,00,000/-. On verification, it is seen that the copy of purchase deed furnished by the assessee does n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... % share and denied any other investment made during the year. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee contended that the assessee had repeatedly claimed to having made only one investment both before the AO and the Ld.CIT(A) and had submitted to have sold the said property in A.Y 2012-13 returning the capital gains earned thereon to tax in the said year.He contended that the Revenue was repeatedly requested to provide the basis for holding the assessee to have made the other investment but the Revenue had failed to provide any basis for the second transaction reported in the ITS and even inquiries conducted by the AO with the Sub- Registrars office had elicited no information, which even the AO had admitted to in his remand report. 7. In this regard, he first drew our attention to the AIR information with the Department filed at PB Page No.67 wherein first transaction entered by the assessee is reflected at transaction amount of Rs.30 lakhs, and transaction dated mentioned as 20.4.2010. He drew our attention to second transaction reflected therein mentioning the transaction amount of Rs.43,41,358/- and date of transaction as 29.7.2010. 8. Thereafter our attention was drawn to replies ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... awn to the said explanation placed at P.B 130 . 11. Ld.Counsel for the assessee therefore stated that the assessee having purchased only one property, the source of which was explained to the Revenue authority, who had accepted the same also, there was no reason to make any addition to the income of the assessee on account of any other alleged investment made by the assessee, that too without any material or basis. The Ld.DR however relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A). 12. We have heard contentions of the both the parties. The addition of Rs.2,43,272/- upheld by the Ld.CIT(A) in the present case is on account of alleged capital gains earned by the assessee on purchase and sale of immoveable property ,both of which transactions were divulged by the Revenue from the ITS data relating to the assessee. 13. We are not in agreement with the Ld.CIT(A) on this count. We find that the assessee had repeatedly admitted to having entered into in only one transaction of purchase of immoveable property of value Rs.30,00,000/- with her share in the same being 20%.The assessee had duly substantiated this investment with necessary documentary evidence by way of furnishing copy of purch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
