9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal are such that the assessee-individual filed his return of income of AY 2012-13 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,740/-. The case was selected under scrutiny and notices u/s 143(2)/142(1) were issued which remained uncomplied. Ultimately, the AO made assessment to the best of his judgement u/s 144 after making two additions, namely (i) addition of Rs. 1,20,47,000/- u/s 69 on account of unexplained investment in a residential house at HIG-HA-68, NRI Colony, Lake View, Koh-e-fiza, Bhopal, and (ii) denial of exemption of Rs. 38,41,924/- claimed by assessee u/s 54/54F against long-term capital gain from sale of another property at Plot No. 1, MP Housing Board, Lake View Colony, Koh-e-fiza, Bhopal. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal before CIT(A). The assessee filed additional evidences before CIT(A) in terms of Rule 46A of Income-tax Rules, 1962 which were admitted by CIT(A). The CIT(A) received remand-report from AO and also rejoinder to same from assessee. After considering assessee's submissions, the CIT(A) granted part-relief in following manner: (i) The CIT(A) firstly issued a notice for enhancement of investment in purchase of property from Rs. 1,20,47, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that during assessment-proceeding, the AO observed that the assessee purchased a residential house at HIG-HA-68, NRI Colony, Lake View, Koh-e-fiza, Bhopal for Rs. 1,20,45,000/- (market value assessed by Stamps Authority - Rs. 1,20,47,000/-) on 19.10.2011. The AO called documents of purchase from the office of sub-registrar u/s 133(6) also. Ultimately, finding no explanation from assessee qua the source of purchase, the AO treated the investment of Rs. 1,20,47,000/- as unexplained u/s 69 and made addition. During first-appeal, the CIT(A) found that the assessee also spent money towards stamps charges - Rs. 8,73,220/- and documentation charges - Rs. 95,560/-. Accordingly, the CIT(A) enhanced assessee's investment to Rs. 1,30,13,980/-. At the same time, the CIT(A) accepted source to the extent of Rs. 60,00,000/- and upheld remaining addition of Rs. 70,13,980/- by passing following order: '3.2.2 I have considered the acts of the case, plea raised by the appellant, findings of the ld. Assessing Officer, remand report and rejoinder thereupon made during appellate proceedings. I find that this ground of appeal relates to the addition of Rs. 1,20,47,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owards the purchase of the house. The appellant was not able to furnish either her bank statement or her Income Tax Return. However, the appellant was in possession of funds to the tune of Rs. 60 lacs which accrued to him out of the sale of his property at Plot No.01, M.P. Housing Board, Koh-e-fiza, Bhopal in the same financial year. This view has also been upheld by the Assessing Officer in his remand report dated 06.04.2022. Hence, out of the total investment of Rs. 1,30,13,980/- Rs. 60,00,000/- stands explained and relief to the extent is granted to the appellant. An addition to the extent of Rs. 70,13,980/- is confirmed and the AO's order is upheld to that extent. The appellant appeal is partly allowed ad enhanced.' 7. Referring to above order of CIT(A), Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has not accepted two sources, viz. (i) a loan of Rs. 80,00,000/- taken by assessee from Mr. Zafar Mohd. Khan and (ii) direct payment of Rs. 23,00,000/- made by Mrs. Shama Mohd. Therefore, our adjudication should be confined to these two sources only. 8. Thereafter, Ld. Representatives of both sides made their respective submissions qua these two sources. We have considered their submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by Ld. CIT(A) are dissolved. Further, Mr. Zafar is assessee's elder brother and his PAN is available; the loans have been given through RTGS; and loans have been given from overdraft facility provided by bank. Therefore, in our considered view, all three ingredients of section 68 namely the identity and creditworthiness of creditor and genuineness of transactions are satisfied and no adverse view is warranted. (ii) Direct payment of Rs. 23 lacs by Mrs. Shama Mohd: We find that Mrs. Shama Mohd. is wife of assessee. The impugned property was purchased jointly by assessee and Mrs. Shama Mohd., the name of both owners are clearly mentioned as purchasers in the registered-deed placed in Paper-Book at Pages 48 to 71. Mrs. Shama Mohd. made payment of Rs. 15,00,000/- to the seller of property and payment of Rs. 8,00,000/- towards stamps charges. During first-appeal, the assessee filed an affidavit dated 30.12.2021 of Mrs. Shama Mohd. to CIT(A) on stamp paper of Rs. 100/- duly notarized, copy placed at Page No. 75 of Paper-Book. In this affidavit, Mrs. Shama Mohd. has made clear-cut averments that (i) the assessee is her husband; (ii) that her PAN is CSYPK4202Q; (iii) that during fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
