9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 543X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 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 may be deleted by your honor now. b) The CIT(A) has not understood at all the cases and the evidences on records and has even not properly considered the remand report of the AO it may be noted that after having the glance at the evidences the AO had nothing to offer. c) It is requested to your honor sir to please consider the same evidences and remand back the same matter to the AO to pass a proper reasoned order. 2. The CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the interest levied under section 234A /B/C of the act." 3. During the course of assessment, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment order, the assessee is just a confirming party and not 'owner' with respect to the said properties. The assessee submitted that by entry of name in the sale deed one does not become the owner of the property and in support of his contention he relied on the case of ITO vs. Departmental 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 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant, it is not possible to verify the confirmations of loans submitted by the appellant. In the absence of any such details it is not possible to verify the claim of the appellant, therefore, it is held that the appellant has failed miserably in discharging the onus cast on him by this statute. Despite being giving repeated opportunities in the assessment as well as the appeal proceedings as well as the filing of additional evidence by the appellant, the appellant has not proved the source of investment as well as the investment made in the land with factual evidence in the form of the balance sheet/P & L A/c./fund flow statement/cash book/bank book etc., therefore, the contention of the appellant is rejected and the appeal of the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 made by M/s. Balaji Infrastructure for the underlying property amounting to Rs. 2,94,44,025/- by way of account payee cheques. Accordingly, the ld. counsel for the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccordingly, all the arguments taken by the assessee are baseless. Therefore, in absence of any evidence, it is not possible for the Assessing Officer /CIT(A) to place any reliance on the submission made by the assessee. The ld. Departmental Representative further pointed out on perusal of the sale deeds, there is no mention of name of the assessee as a partner in M/s. Balaji Infrastructure. Therefore, the assertion that the property was purchased in capacity as partner of M/s Balaji Infrastructure is unfounded. The ld. Departmental Representative drew our attention to page 477 of the paper book in support of this contention. Further, the ld. Departmental Representative also submitted that in the return of the income the assessee has declare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- (in respect of only 3 properties in respect of which the assessee has duly explained the source of investment) and out of the balance payment, a sum of Rs. 2,94,44,025/- has been paid by Balaji Infrastructure and the balance amount of Rs. 5,26,40,575/- has been made by other purchasers (who are partners in M/s Balaji Infrastructure, along-with the assessee). We observe that the Assessing Officer in the absence of supporting material produced before by the assessee (despite several opportunities being granted to the assessee) made addition of Rs. 97,14,300/- on estimated basis by considering 1/10th of the total consideration of 14 properties as unexplained investments u/s. 69 of the Act in the hands of the assessee. From the above facts, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
