9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 577X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. It means that the wealth tax assessments h ave no value to consider the explanation of the assessee. AO has neither examined the source of cash deposit and cash payment towards purchase of immovable property and in the absence of any enquiry conducted by the AO in this regard, the assessment order is rightly been held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. No infirmity in the order of PCIT revising the assessment - Decided against assessee. - ITA No.:354/CHNY/2022 - - - Dated:- 10-2-2023 - Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice President And Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri M. Rajan, CIT ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e AO enquired into source of cash deposit on account of sale of immovable property being two agricultural lands and received total consideration in financial year 2012-13 at Rs.1,39,55,000/-. The AO noted the fact that the assessee has received this sale consideration and invested in purchase of residential property in June 2016 for a sum of Rs.1,07,00,000/- and balance Rs.30,00,000/- was deposited in bank during demonetization period. The AO accepted this cash of Rs.1.07 crores and added the balance Rs.30 lakhs deposited during the demonetization period u/s.69 of the Act. The ld.counsel stated that this addition was accepted by assessee under VSVS and paid the taxes accordingly. Subsequently, the PCIT issued show-cause notice u/s.263 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disclosing this asset. However, it is seen that she has not filed wealth tax returns for any of these years. 9. From the above, it is clear that there was a mistake on the part of the Assessing Officer in not adding the above described amounts of Rs.86,00,000/- which is the amount of the money deposited during the year (before demonetization period) and the amount of Rs.15,49,408/- utilised towards cash payment for purchase of immovable property. Thus the assessment made was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Therefore, under the provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, I hereby set-aside the assessment made under section 143(3) with a direction to the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment for making ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sit in bank account of Rs.86,00,000/- and cash utilized towards purchase of immovable property of Rs.15,49,408/- is explained. 4. The first defect we noted is that the wealth tax returns were not filed by assessee for the relevant assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16 despite the fact that the AO issued reopening notice u/s.16 of the Wealth Tax Act. Further, the assessments were completed only on 11.03.2022 just before issuance of notice dated 24.03.2021 which is again after completion of assessment by the AO which is dated 10.12.2019 and even after issuance of showcause notice by the PCIT which is dated 22.02.2022. It means that the wealth tax assessments h ave no value to consider the explanation of the assessee. Even otherwise, we are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
