9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ough to prove that the source of investment in property is loan taken from ICICI Bank and, therefore, on merits also the addition made by the assessing officer u/s 68 and u/s 69C of the Act do not stand. We, therefore, fail to find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and thus Ground Nos. 1, 2 3 of the revenue are dismissed. Violation of Rule 46A of the Rules - HELD THAT:- It is not discernible from the records nor referred to by the ld. D/R as to what were the documents filed by the assessee before the assessing officer and what new documents were filed before the ld. CIT(A) and without being able to lay our hands on these specific documents, we fail to find any merit in this ground raised by the revenue. Also the facts of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as investment in property to be u/s.69, overlooking the fact that the A.O has added unexplained sources of credits in the books in the form of unconfirmed loans and unsecured advances for which no evidences were filed before the A.O. 3. That, the Ld.CIT(A) grossly erred in deleting addition made u/s.69C Rs.16,08,767/- being unexplained registration cost on the basis of details furnished by the assessee and without observing the fact that such expenses has not been included in the amount of investment shown in the personal balance sheet. 4. That, the CIT(A) has erred in accepting fresh evidence which were never been produced before the assessing officer, and accepted it without verification of such transaction and without providi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee took loan from ICICI Bank for investing in the said property and since the source was explained no addition was called for. 3. Aggrieved the revenue is now in appeal before this Tribunal challenging the finding of the ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition made u/s 68 of the Act at Rs.2,95,40,000/- and u/s 69C of the Act at Rs.16,08,767/- and also taken a ground that the ld. CIT(A) grossly violated the provisions of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ( Rules ) and proper opportunity was not granted to the assessing officer. The ld. D/R vehemently argued supporting the order of the assessing officer. 3.1. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, heavily relied on the finding of the ld. CIT(A) and also took us throu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned it is regarding the violation of Rule 46A of the Rules. It is not discernible from the records nor referred to by the ld. D/R as to what were the documents filed by the assessee before the assessing officer and what new documents were filed before the ld. CIT(A) and without being able to lay our hands on these specific documents, we fail to find any merit in this ground raised by the revenue. Also the facts of the case as discernible from the records and the paper book filed by the assessee, there is sufficient force in the contention of the assessee explaining the source of investment in property and since the factual aspects have been examined by us, we fail to find any merit in this ground of the revenue and hence dismiss the same. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
