9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 578X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be carried forward to the assessee. Addition u/s 69A as unexplained investment - HELD THAT:-Assessee alongwith his brother has purchased 20% shares in the property and out of that 20% share, brother through an affidavit has affirmed that purchase consideration to the extent of his share of 10% was paid by him out of his own sources. With regard to the source of the investment the assessee has been able to substantiate its claim of making such investment out of explained funds by filing the necessary evidences before the AO during remand proceedings. CIT(A) after considering these evidences, has deleted the addition made. As all the payments were made by the assessee were through banking channels and immediate source of the same were duly substantiated therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of CIT(A) to this extent. With regard to the issue of payment of Stamp Duty out of loan taken from one Shri Vijay Kumar, brother of the assessee, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has accepted the contention of the assessee on the basis of confirmation and bank statement of Shri Vijay Kumar without confronting and obtaining a report from the AO on the same. Under these circ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out prejudice to each other. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground(s) of appeal either before or at the time of hearing 0 of the appeal." 2. Apart from this, the assessee has also filed Cross-Objection appeal wherein following grounds raised by the assessee:- 1. "On facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) in Appeal No. 462/18-19 dated 06.12.2019 has erred in passing that order in contravention of the provisions of S. 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the extent of not allowing some of the grounds of the appellant. 2. That on law, facts and circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 17,65,000/- made by the A Ld. AO on account of alleged unexplained cash deposits in the bank a/c even when the same were from explained sources. 3. That on law, facts and circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in denying the short term capital loss of Rs. 21,00,000/- on sale of property only on the ground that the said loss had not been claimed in the ITR even when the sale consideration as well as cost of acquisition of that proper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder of the AO and requested for the confirmation of the addition so made by the AO. With regard to the claim of loss of INR 21,00,000/- on the said property, the Ld.CIT DR supported the order of Ld.CIT(A) on this score and submits that since the said loss is not claimed in the return of income filed and therefore, in terms of section 80 of the Act, the same should not be allowed. 7. It was submitted by the Ld. AR of the assessee that the assessee has sold a property of INR 63,00,000/- which was acquired by him at INR 84,00,000/- and the payment was made during the period from 11.07.2013 to 12.09.2013. The Ld.AR for the assessee submits that the assessee has ultimately suffer the short term loss of INR 21,00,000/- on this transaction which may please be allowed. For this, he submits that it is a claim made before the Ld.CIT(A) and since the Ld.CIT(A) has accepted the fact that the assessee has sold a property and suffered the loss therefore, this loss deserves to be allowed. With regard to addition of INR 63 Lakhs, ld.AR contended that this amount represents the sale consideration and assessee with all plausible evidences has been able to demonstrate this transaction of sales as g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on made. She further submits that though the assessee has made investment of INR 3.225 crore only out of which INR 1.225 crore were stated to have been made out of the explained source and remaining INR 200 Lakhs remained unexplained which deserves to be uphold. The Ld. CIT DR further submits that the assessee has paid stamp duty charges of INR 32.5 Lakhs in cash. The immediate source which was explained of loss of INR 40 Lakhs taken from his brother Shri Vijay Kumar which was accepted by Ld.CIT(A) without obtaining comments of the AO on this issue. Accordingly, Ld.CIT DR submits that the issue of investment of INR 40 Lakhs deserves to be sent back to the file of the AO for necessary verification. 12. On the other hand, Ld.AR of the assessee vehemently supported the order of Ld.CIT(A) and submits that the entire addition was deleted by the Ld.CIT(A) and considering the Remand Report and the facts of the case that the payments were made by the assessee through explained sources and the necessary details were filed before the AO during the remand proceedings therefore, there is no question remained with respect to the source of all the investment made. Accordingly, he prayed for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scrutiny and thus without jurisdiction. 17. Brief facts leading this issue are that the AO based on AIR information observed that the assessee has made cash deposits in various accounts of INR 17.65 Lakhs. The AO asked the assessee for necessary explanation of the sources thereof. As the assessee has not offered any explanation, the AO had made the addition of this amount. In first appeal, the assessee has filed the necessary cash flow statement and further claimed that the issue is outside the scope of verification as it is not covered under the limited scrutiny. However, the Ld.CIT(A) has not accepted the claim of the assessee by observing that under limited scrutiny, the AO can examine the investment in property and since the cash deposit was utilized for making investment in properties, the AO was well within the jurisdiction to examine the issue. 18. Before us, the Ld.AR of the assessee drew our attention to Page 1 of the assessment order wherein the reasons for selection of assessee's case in limited scrutiny are reproduced. He submits that all the four issues are in relation to the investment made and none of the issues is pertaining to the examination of cash deposits in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
