TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 517
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. 3. The appeal for the assessment year 2005-06 is directed against the order of the CIT (Appeals)-29, Mumbai, which in turn, has arisen from an order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 30.12.2011. 4. In brief, the relevant facts are that the Assessee is an individual who is, inter alia, engaged in the business of trading in garments, commission and consultancy. For the assessment year 2005-06, the Assessee filed a return of income on 24.10.2005 declaring a total income of Rs. 5,57,934/-. Subsequently, Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 4.11.2011 reopening the assessment on the basis of the information received from the DG Investigations (Mumbai) with respect to investment made in a flat at Adarsh Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai. In this context, the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act have been adverted to at the time of hearing, which reads as under : "The above objection of the appellant is not a valid for the year under consideration. The assessment was reopened on the issue of verification of investment of Rs. 5,00,000/- in flat with Adarsh CHS Ltd.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he judgement of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [331 ITR 236 (Mum)] 7. On the other hand, the Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue has defended the order of the Assessing Officer to make the impugned additions, by pointing out that the income referred to in the reasons recorded pertain to investment in a flat at Adarsh Cooperative Housing Society Ltd and it is only in the course of such verification that the aforesaid issues came to the notice of the Assessing Officer. 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The crux of the controversy before us revolves around the scope of the power of the Assessing Officer to make additions, when reassessment has been initiated by issuance of notice u/s 147/148 of the Act. In the present case, as the reasons recorded for issuance of notice u/s 148 shows, the assessment was reopened in order to verify the investment made by the Assessee of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the flat at Adarsh Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Factually speaking, in the ensuing assessment, which is the subject matter of controversy before us, the aforesaid income has not been assessed, which implies that the explanation fur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, it has to be held that in the present case, the Assessing Officer was precluded from making the aforesaid additions to the returned income, considering the fact that the income referred to in the reasons recorded for issuance of notice u/s 147/148 of the Act has not been assessed. Therefore, the additions of Rs. 22,48,808/- made to the returned income during the reassessment proceedings are beyond the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer and deserve to be set aside. We hold so. 11. Before parting, we refer to the argument raised by the Ld. DR which is essentially based on the reasoning taken by the CIT (Appeals) in para 19 of his order. As per the CIT (Appeals), even if the Assessing Officer did not make an addition on account of investment in flat amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/-, the impugned reassessment does not get vitiated because the three additions in question are part of the investigation carried out by the Assessing Officer in relation to the investment in flat at Adarsh Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid reasoning is untenable in view of the law on the subject enunciated by the Hon'ble Bombay High C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned to be in the nature of gift received from the mother of the Assessee. 17. On the other hand, the Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue has defended the orders of the authorities below by pointing out that the Assessee has neither established the credit worthiness of the donor and nor the genuineness of the transaction. 18. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. In the context of the impugned sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- the explanation of the Assessee is purely based on the affidavit of the mother, a copy of which has been placed in the Paper Book filed before us. We have perused the said affidavit of the Assessee's mother, Mrs Meena Godbole and find that apart from making general averments of having advanced monies to the Assessee during the period 2001 to 2011, no specific details have been provided. It is also not stated as to the manner in which the amounts have been advanced to the Assessee. The affidavit also does not bring out any concrete sources of income available with Mrs Meena Godbole to justify the gifting of amounts to the Assessee. Therefore, it is a case where the explanation furnished by the Assessee is neither amenable to any verification and nor it ref....