TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 139
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r's leave to file the appeal on the following alternative grounds of appeal: 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in not holding that the reassessment made u/s 147/148 was bad in law. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 36,75,826 made u/s 69 on the footing that the investment made by the Appellant in purchase of a flat was not explained. 3. It is respectfully submitted that the source of investment made in the flat in reference was duly explained with substantial evidence in support. The learned CIT(A) gravely erred in not accepting the explanation and evidence submitted by the Appellant and in rejecting the same on hyper-technical and flimsy grounds. 4. The ld. CIT(A) further erred in confirming the additions/disallowance made by the Learned ITO (herein after called the AO) u/s 24(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 1,50,000/- for deduction of interest on the housing loan borrowed for purchase of flat. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the interest levied u/s 234A/B/C. 6. The appellant craves leave to leave to alter, to amend, to add, or to delete any ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mitted by the assessee that as she was an aged person, therefore, in order to avoid the hassles involved in dealings with the bank, her son Mr. Dharmesh Devram Bhavani was named as first applicant, as he would be of working age at the stage of repayment of loan. The assessee further submitted before the A.O that as the loan funds raised from Citi Finance Consumer Fund Ltd. were utilized for purchase of Flat No. 2001 in the name of the assessee, viz. Shardaben Bhavani, therefore, she was duly entitled towards claim of deduction of Rs. 1,50,000/- under Sec. 24(b) of the Act. However, the explanation of the assessee did not find favour with the A.O, who concluded that as the books of account and other documents impounded during the course of the survey action proved that the assessee had made an unexplained investment in the Flat No. 2001 at Kent Garden, therefore, the assessee by putting forth the aforesaid irrelevant and untenable explanation was trying to escape from the facts that had emerged during the course of the survey proceedings. Thus, the A.O on the basis of his aforesaid conviction made an addition of Rs. 36,75,826/- towards Unexplained investment made by the assessee for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urchasing Flat No. 2001 in Kent Garden Tower, Borivli, Mumbai, a loan of Rs. 37,50,000/- was raised by the assessee from M/s Citi Finance. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that as the assessee was an aged lady, therefore, in order to avoid any hassles at the time of repayment of loan her son Mr. Dharmesh Bhavani was named as first applicant, as he would be of working age at the stage of repayment of loan. The ld. A.R averred that the A.O failing to appreciate the facts of the case in the right perspective had rather hushed through the matter and wrongly concluded that as the loan was not raised by the assessee but by Mr. Dharmesh B. Bhavani, therefore, the investment in the property remained unexplained. The ld. A.R further submitted that on similar misconception of the facts the A.O had disallowed the claim raised by the assessee under Sec. 24(b) of the Act. Per Contra, the ld. Departmental representative (for short 'D.R') relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 6. We have heard the authorised representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. We have perused the copy of the 'Agreement for Sale', dated. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ower authorities to conclude that the source of investment in the property was unexplained. We are of the considered view that the lower authorities on the basis of premature observations had taken a hyper technical view and despite the fact that the material available on record clearly revealed that the investment made towards purchase of flat was from the loan raised from Citi Finance, had thus wrongly concluded that the source of investment to the extent of Rs. 36,75,826/- on 31.03.2006 was to be held as an unexplained investment u/s 69 in the hands of the assessee. We are of the considered view that as the investment of Rs. 36,75,826/- is clearly routed to the loan raised from Citi Finance, therefore, the addition of the same as an unexplained investment u/s 69 in the hands of the assessee cannot be sustained. We thus set aside the order of the CIT(A) and delete the addition of Rs. 36,75,826/-. 7. We now advert to the disallowance of the claim of interest on housing loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- raised by the assessee u/s 24(b) in her return of income, but disallowed by the A.O and thereafter sustained by the CIT(A). We are of the considered view that as observed by us hereinabove,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to file the appeal on the following alternative grounds of appeal: 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in not holding that the reassessment made u/s 147/148 was bad in law. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming additions of Rs. 54,20,000/- made u/s 68 on account of alleged "on money" received for the sale of flat. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in not holding that no addition could be made based solely on the scrap of loose papers found in the course of survey action in the case of Dev Sharda Developers Pvt.Ltd. It is submitted that the said loose papers had no evidential value. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that there were ample other evidences to show that the Appellant had not received "on money" as alleged and hence no addition was tenable u/s 68 or otherwise. 5. The learned CIT(A) further erred in confirming the additions /disallowance made by the Learned ITO (herein after called the AO) u/s 24(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 1,50,000/- for deduction of interest on the housing loan borrowed for purchase of flat. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... there were no directions in his order to bring the said amount to tax in the hands of the respective assesses. The A.O not being persuaded to be in agreement with the contentions of the assessee, therein proceeded with and made an addition of Rs. 54,20,000/- in the hands of the assessee. 10. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee assailed the addition of Rs. 54,20,000/- before the CIT(A) and averred that the A.O had made the addition only on the basis of conjectures and misconceived observations. The assessee submitted before the CIT(A) that as against the stamp duty valuation of Rs. 28,65,984/- the flat was sold by her for a consideration of Rs. 54,00,000/-, which fact further fortified the veracity of the sale transaction of the property under consideration. However, the CIT(A) not finding favour with the contentions of the assessee, being of the view that the assessee had failed to rebut the presumptions regarding the noting of the receipt of cash in the impounded document, therefore, upheld the addition made by the A.O. 11. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the A.O had carried the matter in appeal before us. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed on the orders of the lower authorities. The ld. D.R submitted that as the notings at Page 37 of the impounded diary pertained to the Flat No. 2001, Kent Garden, Borivali (W), Mumbai, therefore, the lower authorities had rightly concluded that the assessee had received "on money" of Rs. 54,20,000/- on the sale of the property. The ld. D.R in order to support his contention relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Surendra M. Khandhar Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax & Ors (2010) 321 ITR 254 (Bom). The ld. D.R relying on the said judgment submitted that it was held by the Hon'ble High Court that as the assessee had failed to rebut the presumption drawn by the A.O under Sec 292C, therefore, the addition under Sec. 69 on the basis of the document seized from the possession of assessee was rightly made by AO and sustained by the Tribunal. It was thus submitted by the ld. D.R that now when the assessee had failed to rebut the presumption drawn by the A.O on the basis of the notings in the diary impounded in the course of the survey proceedings conducted on M/s Devsharda developers, therefore, the addition of Rs. 54,20,000/- was rightly made by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid property could have be drawn by the A.O. We are rather of the considered view that as the details mentioned against the amount of Rs. 91,20,000/- (supra) are clearly at variance as against that of the property under consideration, therefore, there was no occasion for the A.O to have acted upon the said impugned notings in context of the sale of the property under consideration. We further find that the judgment of the of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Surendra M. Khandhar Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax & Ors (2010) 321 ITR 254 (Bom) relied upon by the ld. D.R is distinguishable on facts. We find that in the case before the High Court a zerox copy of a document signed by two parties, revealing payment of a loan of Rs. 20 lac by the assessee to them and the manner as per which the amount was to be received back was seized from the premises of the assessee during the course of Search & seizure proceedings. The assessee in the said case neither at the first available opportunity, nor at any subsequent stage of appeal or before the High Court denied the document, but had only claimed that the transaction mentioned therein was not given effect to. We find t....