9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 768X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r LLP made before the Hon ble Settlement Commission but nowhere it has been described that the assessee has paid on-money receipt and the AO also failed to show/demonstrate in the Assessment Order that REC-DIS is actually on-money payment in cash. Merely relying on the excel sheet and admission part of the builder which was never confronted to the assessee cannot make the addition. Hence, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is not justifiable. Thus, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. - ITA No. 71/Ahd/2020 - - - Dated:- 6-1-2023 - Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Assessee : Shri Hardik Vora, AR For the Respondent : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. DR ORDER This appeal is filed by the Assessee against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the return was originally filed by the assessee on 14.07.2011 declaring total income of Rs.5,23,194/-. The case was reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of information received from the office of the DCIT regarding search/survey action under Section 132 of the Act carried out at Ahmedabad in respect of various premises of HN Safal Group on 04.09.2013. Notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee for reopening the assessment for A.Y. 2011-12 after recording the reasons. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.16,73,700/- as unexplained investment under Section 69B of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r denied that the cheque payments were made which was under the caption of REC-CHQ. The Ld. DR submitted that RECDIS also contemplates that the receipt on discount and, therefore, the addition was rightly made by the CIT(A)/Assessing Officer. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the CIT(A). 7. Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The assessee has 50% share in the property with Anal N. Shah who is husband of the assessee. This fact was never discussed by the Assessing Officer and, therefore, the assessee cannot be solely held responsible for the entire addition of Rs.16,73,700/-. Besides this, the Assessing Officer in the assessment order has solely relied upon the statement of builder M/s. Muni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
