9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 543X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... investment in 14 properties or whether he is a owner in respect of such properties, the precise investment made by the assessee in the aforesaid properties and also to verify whether the source of such investment has been duly explained by the assessee. In the result, the matter is being restored to the file of Assessing Officer with the above directions. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No. 1638/Ahd/2017 - - - Dated:- 12-10-2022 - Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice President And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Divyang Shah, A.R. For the Revenue : Ms. Pooja Parekh, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Ahmedabad in Appeal no. CIT(A)-10/ITO-WD/1(2)(5)/119/15-1 vide order dated 29/03/2017 passed for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. The CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in : a) Appreciating the facts of the case and upholding the addition under the section 69 of the act for Rs.97,12,000/-. The same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Representative. Vandana reported at 180 TTJ 505 (Mumbai ITAT). Thus, in any case, the assessee submitted that the addition may be restricted to Rs. 56,39,400/- only, which is with respect to investment made by the assessee in the aforesaid three properties. However, the assessee submitted that even in respect of three properties, in which admittedly the assessee made investment, all the sources of the investments is duly explained and no addition in this respect is called for u/s. 69 of the Act. However, ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee s appeal with the following observations:- 7.3 The appellant has not produced any evidence whatsoever including the purchase deed to explain that other than these three purchase deeds in all the other 11 purchase deed, he was just a confirming party. In fact, the submission of the appellant are contradictory and the appellant himself is saying that he has invested in 4 pieces of land in point no.3 of his submission whereas he has filed the details of only 3 pieces of land along with the purchase deed. Which one is the 4th piece of land and the purchase deed of the same has not been disclosed by the appellant in the additional evidences. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m M/s Balaji Infrastructure, since as per local laws agricultural land can be acquired by agriculturists only. Due to this reason, all 14 properties were purchased in the name of the farmers, who are also the partners in the partnership firm M/s. Balaji Infrastructure. Therefore, amount of the payments for purchasing the underlying properties was paid by M/s. Balaji Infrastructure and if any payment is made by any of the partners of M/s. Balaji Infrastructure, then the same is considered as capital investment by partners in the said partnership firm. However, from the perusal of each sale deed of the 14 underlying properties, it is not clear as to who makes the payment for investment in all the underlying properties. Therefore, due to this drafting error in the sale deed, the Assessing Officer could not identify the exact payment made by the assessee. In either of the cases, either the payment is made by Balaji Infrastructure or the payment is made by the partner-cum-purchaser of underlying properties which is considered as capital contribution in the said partnership firm. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted a chart/table before us giving details of payment which have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee has declared salary income and therefore it is not clear whether the assessee is salaried employee or an agriculturist. Further, the Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee has sought to place reliance on substantial additional evidences produced for the first time before the Hon ble ITAT, which cannot be entertained at this stage since both the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A) gave substantial opportunity to the assessee to produce these details before them, and the assessee did not avail this opportunity at earlier stages of hearing despite sufficient opportunity. Further, the ld. Departmental Representative submitted that since the assessee s name is appearing in 11 sale deeds where he is asserting that he is only a confirming party, the onus is on the assessee to prove that he is only a confirming party in these sale deeds and he is not the owner of the property. However, the assessee has not been able to discharge this onus cast upon him. Therefore, the ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the ld. CIT(A) is not erred in facts and in law in confirming the addition u/s 69 of the Act. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
