TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 1206
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hawla on 10.01.2012. During the course of the search, a copy of an agreement of sale deed dated 09.01.2007 entered between the assessee and one Shri P.Pongopal was found and seized. As per this agreement, assessee had contracted to purchase eleven flats constructed by M/s.Ponram Promoters for a total consideration of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- against which an advance of Rs. 40,00,000/- was paid by the assessee on 09.01.2007 itself. The AO required the assessee to explain the source of the cash advance of Rs. 40 lakhs, during the course of assessment proceedings. As per the AO, in reply to question No.8, the assessee had stated on 27.04.2012 that a sum of Rs. 40 lakhs was not accounted in his books and was out of his unaccounted business of income. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut of this, assessee disclosed Rs. 17.5 lakhs as payment to purchase of flats. Further, there is a failure for disclosing the balance of Rs. 22.5 lakhs. The AO brought this Rs. 22.5 lakhs in the assessment year 2008-09, though the said amount was said to be paid on 09.01.2007, relating to financial year 2006-07 pertaining to assessment year 2007-08. As per the provisions of the section 69B, only undisclosed investment in the assessment year under consideration i.e., 2008-09 could be brought in tax to those assessment years. The transaction relating to another assessment year than 2008-09 could not be brought to tax in the assessment year under consideration before us. The contention of the Departmental Representative is that since the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d assessment year and tax it for the succeeding assessment year. Thus, according to assessee, the PCIT was trying to substitute his view with a lawful view taken by the AO. 2.3 However, the PCIT was not impressed. According to him, just because an amount was considered for assessment in a subsequent assessment year, would not preclude the Revenue to make the addition of such sum in the correct assessment year. He held that the assessment order for assessment year 2007-08 was erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. He set aside the assessment order with a direction to the AO to redo the assessment, by bringing to tax the sum of Rs. 22.50 lakhs as unexplained investment u/s.69B of the Act for the impugned a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... It is not disputed by the assessee that agreement for sale dated 09.01.2007 did mention an advance of Rs. 40 lakhs as paid by the assessee on that date. It is also not disputed that assessee had in a statement recorded from him on 27.04.2012 admitted such sum to be a part of his unexplained business income. The AO after going through the submissions of assessee had held that assessee had disclosed only Rs. 17.5 lakhs in his return of income for the impugned assessment year against the unexplained investments of Rs. 40 lakhs. The AO had considered in detail claim of assessee that a sum of Rs. 22.5 lakhs was received from Mr.P.Murugesan as a part of joint venture. However, he refused to accept this claim. Nevertheless, while completing the a....