9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nk account statements, and payment confirmations, which were duly examined by the AO. Assessee's name does not appear in the incriminating documents, and the AO did not question the explanation that the unit was purchased by the assessee's parents, and her name was added only for inheritance purposes. AO had accepted a large sum of unexplained cash deposits without any inquiry and the PCIT held that the entire amount should have been taxed, particularly in the absence of plausible explanations. In that case it was noted that the assessee made contradictory submissions-first, claiming the deposits did not belong to him, and second, stating that they were related to his business. AO accepted the latter without sufficient inquiry into either of these explanations. In contrast, the present case involves a detailed inquiry conducted by the AO into the property purchase, supported by documentary evidence, including the sale deed, bank statements, and confirmations from the developer. Assessee consistently denied making any on-money payments, and the AO found no direct evidence implicating the assessee. Therefore, unlike in the case of Prakashbhai Ishwarbhai Changela [ 2024 (4) TM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eport from the Investigation Wing which indicated that, during a search operation on NODPL, the builder admitted to receiving on-money in cash payments for the sale of villas. An excel file found during the search reportedly showed details of these cash payments, and the reopening was initiated on the basis of this seized evidence, implicating the assessee in making such a payment for the property purchase. The assessee had purchased property jointly with Saurabh Sumant Patwa, Kalpana Saurabh Patwa and Shimoli Vishal Shah from NODPL. 2.2. During the reassessment proceedings for the AY 2015-16, the assessee raised significant objections regarding the validity of the re-opening of the assessment. Despite repeated requests, the AO failed to provide the assessee with the actual copy of the reasons recorded for re-opening the assessment, which had been submitted to the Ld.Principal Commissioner of Income Tax for approval. The assessee denied making any payments beyond what was declared in the Sale Deed for the purchase of Unit No. 122 in the Kalhaar Blues and Greens project. While the AO alleged the possibility of undisclosed payments, the assessee maintained that the entire considerati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also argued that where two views are possible and one view is adopted by the AO, then existence of other possible view alone would not be sufficient to assume jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act. Additionally, without prejudice to her contentions, the assessee submitted the details of deed of conveyance, details of payments made by way of purchase consideration, copy of bank account passbook and confirmation from the developer (NODPL) to bring on record that she was not party to payment consideration. 2.7. The Ld.PCIT set aside the orders of AO by passing order u/s. 263 of the Act. While doing so, the Ld.PCIT rejected the contentions of the assessee stating that details noted in incriminating documents i.e. excel sheet had proper details of KBG units such as number of unit, selling price of land, construction cost, amount received were matching with the unit of the assessee and the NODPL, on the basis of seized documents, accepted the receipt of On Money before the Settlement Commission and paid due taxes on it. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before us with following grounds of appeal: Common Grounds of Appeal(s) in ITA Nos. 775 and 776/Ahd/2024 (F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the assessee s parents booked the unit No. 641 in February-2015 and paid the initial consideration of Rs. 61,79,250/-, whereas the dates showing the details in excel are of 2013. The Ld.AR, to sum up the arguments, stated that the order passed by the Ld.PCIT need to be treated as bad at law and even on merit, in absence of any evidence, deserve to be vacated. The Ld.AR placed reliance on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in case of Divyesh Bhupendra Desai Vs. PCIT in ITA No. 802/Ahd/2024 dated 29-08-2024. 6. On the other hand, the Ld.Departmental Representative (DR), relied on the order of the Ld.PCIT and also stated that the since the AO has failed in conducting the inquiry, the order passed by him is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Ld.DR placed reliance on the decision of ITAT Rajkot Bench in case of Prakashbhai Ishwarbhai Changela Vs. PCIT, Rajkot in ITA No.46 47/Rjt/2022 dated 10-04-2024. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. It is well-settled law that for invoking Section 263 of the Act, the Ld.PCIT must demonstrate that the order passed by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng a search in the premises of a third party (as in the present case) does not provide a valid basis for assuming the existence of a transaction between the assessee and the developer. The Court noted that the excel sheet, which allegedly contained payment details from the assessee to the developer, lacked any corroborative material or signature, making it an unreliable document. The Hon ble Court also found that there was no direct evidence, such as corroborative material, linking the assessee to the alleged payments and, therefore, the reliance on the developer having paid taxes on amounts shown in the excel-sheet before the Settlement Commission was deemed insufficient. The Hon ble High Court emphasized that unless there is clear adjudication or substantiating evidence that the assessee actually made those payments, mere entries in an excel sheet found from a third party cannot form the basis for proceedings against the assessee. 7.2. Thus, in light of the facts and the principles established by the judicial precedents, we find that the PCIT s order under Section 263 is unjustified. The AO's original assessment was based on a proper examination of the relevant material, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
