2017 (12) TMI 580

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as ITA No. 7349/Mum/2014 by revenue contest relief provided to the assessee by first appellate authority in the consequential order passed u/s 143 read with Section 263. Since, the assessee's appeal contest the very validity of the jurisdiction and goes to the root of the matter, we take up the same first. 2.1 Facts leading to the same are that the assessee being resident individual was assessed for impugned AY u/s 143(3) on 26/12/2011 at Rs. 1,76,300/- as against returned income of Rs. 1,72,950/- filed by the assessee on 31/07/2009. The assessment was framed by Ld. Income Tax Officer 22(3)(3), Mumbai. Subsequently, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax-22, Mumbai [CIT] invoking revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 vide order dated 04/02/2013 quas....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arding the purchase of the shop and therefore the action u/s 263 was not valid. The assessee further contended that no evidentiary value could be attached to loose sheets found from the possession of third party. However, Ld. CIT opined that the information from investigation wing was received by Ld. AO on 10/04/2012 i.e. well after completion of assessment and therefore, the same could not be utilized / appreciated by Ld. AO during assessment proceedings and therefore, action u/s 263 was valid since the order was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us and contests the very invocation of jurisdiction u/s 263. 3. The Ld. Counsel for Assessee [AR] submitted that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f purchase / sale of immoveable properties acquired by the assessee during the impugned year and preceding three years with supporting documents and source thereof. The assessee, vide reply dated 14/07/2011, submitted details of the shop acquired by the assessee along with payment details and source of funds. However, there is no discussion / arguments anywhere either in the assessment order or in the submissions made by the assessee about the seized material and cash payment as noted from the loose sheets founds during search operations. Prima facie, this information was either not in the possession of Ld. AO or altogether skipped the notice of Ld. AO. Therefore, the contention that Ld. AO applied his mind on the issue qua seized material ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ri Kantilal Patel had written a letter way back on 5th May, 2009 to the DDIT (INV) clarifying therein that he had not received cash from all flat buyers. He further confirmed the said statement made in the aforesaid letter addressed to the Investigation Wing of the Income tax Department and affirmed the same during his cross examination that he indeed received no cash from the appellant. The AO made an addition without making further investigation or bringing on record any other material which would rebut the stand taken by the appellant and later on confirmed by Kantilal Patel on whose statement such addition was envisaged. It may be pertinent to note that presumption under section 132 (4A) of the act applied to third party. Therefore, in ....