9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cord of the AO for fresh adjudication after proper verification and examination of the relevant facts as well as record explaining the source of investment made by the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Reopening of assessment for unexplained investment in purchase of Godown - for AY 2011-12 - There is no allegation in the enquiry report regarding the another transaction of sale of plot for Rs. 3,75,000/- by Late Sh. Charanjit Singh Sehgal to the assessee. Further, the AO in the assessment order has not given any detail of property or title document through which the assessee has allegedly purchased the property. The AO took the second transaction of Late Sh. Charanjit Singh Sehgal as the transaction between the assessee and the vendor without considering the fact that the second transaction reported in the enquiry report does not pertain to the assessee. Accordingly, in the absence of any fact or document to show that the assessee has purchased the said plot of land from Late Sh. Charanjit Singh Sehgal, vide sale deed dated 11.3.2011, the addition made by the AO is baseless and liable to be deleted. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er it is also not clear from the limited details filed by the learned DR as to which address the orders were sent. The assessee has further explained that the counsel of the assessee appearing before the CIT(A) did not communicate about the impugned orders. It is pertinent to note that before the CIT(A), nobody has appeared on behalf of the assessee and consequently these appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) by upholding the orders of the AO. It is clear that nobody has appeared before the CIT(A) and therefore, the counsel who was authorized to appear before the CIT(A) did not attend the proceedings and assessee was not communicated about the orders. Since, the assessee obtained the certified copies of these orders on 20.03.2020 when Covid-19 pandemic outbreak was prevailing and the Hon ble Supreme Court while taking the cognizance for extension of limitation vide decision reported in 441 ITR 722 initially, vide order dated 23.03.2020, extended the period of limitation in all proceedings before the Courts / Tribunal including the Hon ble Supreme Court w.e.f. 15.03.2020 till further orders. The said period of limitation was extended from time to time and finally vide judgment dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the impact of the surge of the virus on public health and adversities faced by litigants in the prevailing conditions, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the M.A. No. 21 of 2022 with the following directions: I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasijudicial proceedings. II. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022. III. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. IV. It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly passed an order u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Varanasi has not been seen the process of assessement by the Assessing Officer ward 1(4) Bhadohi where the proper opportunity was not given to applicant to submit their reply regarding purchasing of Godown for Rs 375000/-. 5. That the appellant was filing ITR-S from the year of 2004-2005 till now and there is a provision in filling ITR-S where only necessary to show the gross receipt and its 8% net profit which the assessing officer used to the power under the Act personally in intension to create revenue which is bad in law. 6. The A.O had issued notice to assessee under section 148 of I.T.Act on the basis of enquiry report dated 09.02.2016 from the ADI (Inv.)Varanasi which subject was to explain about purchasing of land where order passed on the basis as per ADI report .the A.O treated it an investment whether it was the part of the fixed assets under the part of balance sheet however assessee filed their return under section 44AD in form 4S (Sugam) where under this section 44AD the assessee is also given in written the computation details of form 4S where he dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nor on fact be made a basis to assume jurisdiction u/s 144/148 of the Act and thus order on this ground alone deserve to be quashed as such. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax has failed to appreciate that section 144/148 of IT Act and cannot be invoked to make deeper enquiry in other words. allegation of proper enquiry or independence enquiry cannot be a valid basis to invoke section 144/148 of the Act. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax has framed the impugned order without granting opportunity to explain to appellant and therefore the order made is illegal, invalid and vitiated order. 7. The solitary issue arises in this appeal of the assessee is regarding addition made by the AO of Rs. 8,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment in purchase of property being Godown. The AO has reopened the assessment on the basis of the enquiry report dated 9.2.2015 of ADI(Inv), Varanasi by issuing a notice under section 148 on 07.04.2015. As per the enquiry report dated 09.02.2015 in the case of Sh. Charanjit Singh Sehgal as capital gain on sale of Godown as well as the residential plot vide sale deed dated 31.8.2007 and 11.3.2011, respectively was esca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e deed dated 31.08.2007 and copy of declaration on stamp paper dated 22.08.2014. Referring to these documents, the learned AR has submitted that at the time of agreement, the assessee paid Rs. 1,00,000/- to the vendor Sh. Charanjit Singh Sehgal (now deceased) and thereafter the assessee has paid the balance amount in installments and in staggered manner, the details of which were produced before the AO as well as CIT(A). Finally, payment of Rs. 4,90,000/- of purchase consideration was paid on 22.09.2014 to Sh. Charanjit Singh Sehgal (now deceased) which is recorded in a declaration by both parties, a copy of which is filed. Thus, the learned AR has submitted that the AO has made the addition without considering the correct facts regarding the payment made by the assessee towards purchase consideration as well as the source of payment explained by the assessee. The assessee has been declaring the income regularly from his business activity and the purchase of the Godown is also duly recorded in the books of accounts. Thus, the learned AR has submitted that when no payment was made during the year under consideration then the addition made by the AO is not justified and liable to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the AO was made in the preceding year and not during the year under consideration and further the explanation of the source of the payment was not discussed by the AO as well as the CIT(A), the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is remanded to the record of the AO for fresh adjudication after proper verification and examination of the relevant facts as well as record explaining the source of investment made by the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. 11. For the assessment year 2011-12, the assessee has raised the following grounds:- 1. That order dated 04.06.2019 u/s 144/148 of the I.T.Act, 1961 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Varanasi has been made without considering the papers given by appellant which were related the satisfactory explanation and answer of the entire assessment order which has been made only on basis of an affidavit which have not contained in the Act and is, deserve be quashed as such. 2. That the learned Commissioner has not considered that appellant has not purchased any land for Rs 375000/- during financial year relevant to assessment year 2011-12 as such there was no que ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. the assesse with his legal representative submitted their reply of the same that he had not purchased any land or invested non regarding the assessment year 2011-12 the applicant was also submitted the statement of their bank and income tax return continues from AY.2004- 05, to 2012-13 before the officer where he was explained to him in written that he had not invested any land or other investment and he was submitted the papers supported his reply regarding the said notice from A.Y 2004-05 to 2008-09. That finding and conclusion of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Varanasi that the assessment order passed u/s 144/148 of the Act dated 04.06.2019 in the case of assessee for the Assessment year 2011-12 is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to interest of revenue in terms of section 263 of the Act on the following basis is based on fundamental misconception of facts and provision of law and hence untenable. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in holding that the assessment under passed by the A.O. is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax has failed to appreciate tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned AR has submitted that the only transaction between the assessee and Late Sh. Charanjit Singh Sehgal was regarding the purchase of Godown for consideration of Rs. 13,00,000/- which was the subject matter of assessment for the assessment year 2008-09. Therefore, the AO has reopened the assessment without any basis and made the addition of Rs. 3,75,000/- which is unjustified and arbitrary. 14. On the other hand, the learned DR has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 15. I have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The enquiry report dated 09.02.2015 received by the AO from the ADI(Inv), Varanasi, reads as under:- F.No.ADIT(Inv.)/VNS/TEP-Charanjit Sehgal/14-15/456 Dated 09.02.2015 To The Jt. Director of Income Tax(Inv.) Varanasi. Sir, Sub.: Enquiry report in the case of Sh. Charanjit Sehgal, UIN 110954191Y, Bhadohi-regarding. The above case of TEP in the case of Sh Charanjit Sehgal was assigned to ITO(Inv) Varanasi. Open enquiry was conducted by the ITO(Inv) and the allegations were that 1. The assessee has evaded Capital Gain Taxes on the sale of Godown etc and also on the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n being the purchase of Godown by the assessee for Rs. 13,00,000/- was reported and the AO was directed to initiate the action under section 147. Therefore, the AO has initiated the re-assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2011-12 without having any allegations of purchase of the said property for a consideration of Rs. 3,75,000/- by the assessee. The said transaction though reported in the enquiry report but it was only a sale transaction of Late Sh. Charanjit Singh Sehgal to somebody other than the assessee. Para 3 and 5 of the enquiry report clearly states that the Godown was sold to the assessee for a consideration of Rs. 13,00,000/- and there is no allegation in the enquiry report regarding the another transaction of sale of plot for Rs. 3,75,000/- by Late Sh. Charanjit Singh Sehgal to the assessee. Further, the AO in the assessment order has not given any detail of property or title document through which the assessee has allegedly purchased the property. The AO took the second transaction of Late Sh. Charanjit Singh Sehgal as the transaction between the assessee and the vendor without considering the fact that the second transaction reported in the enquiry report do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
