2013 (5) TMI 587

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed was not to be redirected to the AO to verify in so far as these facts were brought on record by the AO and were considered by the ld. CIT(A) as could be perused in his order. 2. The brief facts as have been brought on record are that the assessee is an individual rendering income from dividend etc. filed return of income of Rs.5,15,550/- The AO observed investment in a flat co-owned by the assessee's mother. He arithmetically divided 50% share of the assessee. He observed that a sum of Rs.18,65,190/- was paid for by the assessee and remained undisclosed. It was the explanation that the assessee's mother being 50% co-owner was not able to pay the whole amount was paid by the assessee cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee, in so ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....factual matrix justified after verification and therefore held the amount directly paid by the assessee to M/s. Kalpataru Ltd. on behalf of her mother Smt. Manisha Agarwal during the financial year 2008-09. It was refunded to her cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee in the impugned assessment year and deleted the said addition. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and carefully perused the materials available on record. On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A). 5.1. During the year under reference the assessee, Ms.Avani Agarwal (assessee) had purchased a flat jointly with her mother, Smt.Manisha Agarwal. Total cost of flat was Rs.98,01,57....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Even appellant's rectification petition to allow the balance amount has been rejected on the above ground though in present appeal AO admits that CIT(A) gave relief of Rs.18,65,190/- as per his ground. 5.4. In this view of the matter, the ld counsel for the assesee in his wisdom has agreed to the proposition that the Cross Objection for considering a part portion on the AO's order u/s 251 of the Act remains a question to be addressed by the ld. CIT(A) in so far as the whole of the amount on Rs.18,65,190/- stood explained cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee alone. The ld. Counsel therefore has rightly pointed out that the direction was not proper in so far as the factual facts as brought on record by the AO was dealt with in deta....