TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 491
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1.1. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have deleted the entire addition made under the caption "unaccounted investments in purchase of properties. 1.2. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) failed to note that the assessee had explained the sources for the entire investment and a cash flow statement was also filed in support thereof. Therefore no portion of the investment is to be treated as unexplained or unaccounted. 2. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in treating the loan repayment as unaccounted in a summary manner. 3. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in fixing the agricultural income at a meager Rs. 1,50,000/- as against ls.2,00,000/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ain documents and books of accounts were found. Thereafter, the AO reopened the assessment u/s.147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s.148 and completed the assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act on 30/12/2011 wherein the ld. Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 10,71,500/- on account of unaccounted investments. 4.1 Ground No.1 The purchase price of the property invested in item No.2. The Ld. Assessing Officer had arrived at Rs. 9,37,000/- as the unexplained source for purchase of properties by observing as under:- "As per the Appraisal Report received from DD1y ation) Chennai the assessee along with on Shri Peer Mohammed has made the following transactions in cash during the financial year 2003-04. Sl. No. Date of purchase Name ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... found that the door no. mentioned in the two documents are different as per the survey report i.e. document registered on 07-7-2003 is door no.25/14 and document registered on 17-10-2003 is 26. To verify this the document pertaining these transactions available in seized documents were verified ie. Seized documents in ANN/SKR/DOC/LS-6. It is found document registered on 07- 7-2003 is only an agreement and not an sale deed. Howerver, it is found that the assessee Shri Nagoor Meeran has paid Rs. 1,90,000 + Rs. 2,00,00/- to the owner of the property. Hence this is treated as advance payment in the absence of any cancellation agreement. Regarding the source of funds claimed by the assessee for the purchase of 50% share of two properties which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....session of another 337.5 sq.ft of land in the same door number from Ms. S. Selvi (which was under disputes earlier) and made a combined sale deed for 1800 sq.ft on 17 102003 by showing the total sale consideration at Rs. 8,92,000/- However, the assessee, as an abundant precaution obtained another sale deed from Ms S.Selvi for 337.5 sqft on 25.10.2003 by showing the sale consideration at Rs. 2,02,000/- Thus, the sale consideration shown at transaction mentioned at Sl No 2 of Rs. 8,92,000/- is the total of the transactions mentioned at Sl No.2 of Rs. 8.92,000/0 is the total of the transactions mentioned at Sl.Nos.1 & 3 (i.e.Rs 6,90,000 + Rs. 2,02,000). Thus, there is a duplication of the amounts considered by the Assessing Officer in his orde....