TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 1138
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent order dt. 31-12-2007, vide order dt. 29-03-2010 and directed the AO to enquire into the sources of investment of Rs. 1,25,500/- made by assessee in the property located at Kothwalguda, Hyderabad. Assessee has not challenged the order U/s. 263. In the consequential proceedings, after examining the issue and giving opportunity to assessee, AO made an addition of Rs. 1,25,500/- which was not disclosed by assessee at the time of filing original return and contentions made based the revised statements have not been accepted. Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the same. Hence, assessee is aggrieved on the said addition of Rs. 1,25,500/- made U/s. 69 of the Act and raised the grounds accordingly. 2.1. In AY. 2004-05, similar issue arose in the sense that assessee had made certain investments which were disclosed in the affidavit filed before the Returning Officer, which were not disclosed at the time of completion of assessment earlier. Consequently, AO invoked the proceedings U/s. 147 and in the re-assessment proceedings, AO brought to tax an amount of Rs. 5,57,000/- stated to be the value not disclosed at the time of completion of original assessment U/s. 69 of the Act. Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re the date of registration on 16-02-2002. Admittedly, there were no books of accounts and the appellant has been constructing and reconstructing his balance-sheets depending on the necessity. In the original scrutiny proceedings, the investment was not reflected in the balance-sheet at all. In proceedings u/s 143 (3) rws 263, it was explained that since the sale consideration of Rs. 1,25,500 was yet to be paid as on 31-03-2002, both the asset and liability were not reflected in balancesheet submitted during original asst. proceedings. However, during 143 (3) rws 263 proceedings, the balance-sheet was reconstructed reflecting the asset and liability. Now during the present appeal proceedings, the appellant came up with another version that the payment of Rs. 1,25,500 was adjusted against the amounts receivable from the company. All the three versions are inconsistent and are not supported by any documentary evidence. Therefore, the addition made by A.O. relying on the sale deed wherein it was clearly mentioned that amount of Rs. 1,25,500 was paid in cash is confirmed". 5. After considering the rival contentions and perusing the documents placed on record, we are in agreement wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....opened u/s. 147. k. The Assessing Officer observed that as per the para-2, page-4 of sale deed dated 02.11.2003, the assessee paid Rs. 32,40,000 as under: Date Cheque No. Amount (Rs) 02.12.2003 083705 18,15,000 02.12.2003 448791 14,25,000 Total: 32,40,000 On receipt of such money the vendor delivered the vacant possession of the property to the appellant. As per the sale deed the amount invested was Rs. 20,57,000 whereas as per the Balance Sheet the amount invested was only Rs. 15.00 lakhs. After issuing the show cause notice after, considering the reply of the assessee the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 5,57,000 (Rs.20,57,000 - Rs. 15,00,000) as the unexplained investment u/s 69 of I.T. Act, 1961. 4. During the course of appeal proceedings, the appellant pleaded that he obtained loan of Rs. 15.00 lakhs from State Bank of Hyderabad and remaining amount of Rs. 5,57,000 was met from his own sources, he also submitted reconstructed Balance Sheet as under:- It was further claimed that the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 5,57,000 as unexplained investment without doubting the co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1,500 Flew out of sources for Rs. 11,98,400 shown above 11,98,400 9.1. Out of the above amounts, AO has considered only the amount of Rs. 5,57,000/- for making addition and has not examined the other amounts, the reasons of which are not available on record. We are not sure whether those investments were made in this year or in earlier years. Be that as it may, there was a short disclosure to an extent of Rs. 11,98,400/-, out of which Rs. 5,57,000/- was considered as undisclosed in the assessment order. The explanation offered by assessee is not proper in the sense that no reasons were given, why the above amounts were not disclosed earlier. Even though a reconstructed Balance Sheet was prepared, the corresponding sources were not properly explained. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the order of the CIT(A) confirming the above amount does not require any interference. In view of that, we affirm the order of the Ld.CIT(A). Grounds on this issue are rejected. 10. The other issue which was raised before us is with reference to completion of assessment U/s. 144. Ld.CIT(A) gave a finding on this issue as under: "5.ii. The Ground No. 2 and 3 refers to ....