TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 52
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing Officer was of the opinion that there is an escapement of income, hence, notice under section 148 was issued and by considering the request of the assessee, reasons for reopening also given to the assessee and assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has observed that during the year, the assessee along with his wife Smt. K. Seeta Mahalakshmi purchased an immovable property situated at Narasimhanagar in Visakhapatnam for a consideration of Rs. 21 lakhs, as against market value of Rs. 24,95,000/- registered on 13/07/2005 vide sale deed document No. 1690/2005 and also incurred an amount of Rs. 2,36,230/- towards stamp duty and registration charges. The s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rthy Mandal, East Godavari District. It was submitted that finally the transaction was not completed. The Assessing Officer has suspected the agreement entered by the assessee with Sri Nallamilli Veerabhaskara Reddy and issued notice to Sri Nallamilli Veerabhaskara Reddy, which was returned with the comment that 'declined and hence return to sender'. Later, Assessing Officer summoned document writer Sri J. Sadashiva Reddy and examined him on oath. The document writer deposed that he had written the document on a specific request of the assessee about six months ago, though the agreement was dated 11/07/2005. On the basis of the above deposition, the Assessing Officer disbelieved the assessee's claim in respect of advance of Rs. 5 lakhs agai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tter. The document writer who was examined on oath has disposed that he had written the document only 6 months back and not in 2005 as mentioned in the document. The deposition given by the document writer on oath u/s.131 of the Income-tax Act has evidentiary value as per the provisions of Oath Act. The said document writer is not a party to the agreement. Hence, the plea that inquiry was conducted at the back of the assessee has no merits. Further the assessing officer could not rebut any of the adverse findings of the assessing officer during the appellate proceedings. Therefore, I find that the assessing officer was justified in inferring that the claim of advance of Rs. 5lakh was not genuine. Accordingly the impugned addition to the tun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee, he had written the document only six month ago, though the agreement was dated 11/07/2005. On the basis of deposition given by the document writer Sri J. Sadashiva Reddy and also non-response to the notice issued to Sri Nallamilli Veerabhaskara Reddy, the Assessing Officer came to a conclusion that the entire transaction is not a genuine and the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs has been treated and added as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act, the same was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). I find that when Assessing Officer has issued notice to Sri Nallamilli Veerabhaskara Reddy, who is alleged party of the agreement decline to receive notice, the Assessing Officer has not asked any explanation from the asses....