TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 724
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the appellant. 3) The Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have seen the bank statement and mortgage loan details filed by the appellant. 4) The Commissioner (Appeals) having accepted the total income ought not to have treated the repayment as on expenditure u/s. 69C of Income tax Act'1961. 5) The Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have considered the source of income as follows: Agricultural income : Rs. 1,75,000 Rental income : Rs. 2,10,000 Rs. 2,10,000 : Rs. 1,30,474 Rs. 5,15,474/- Used for the repayment of loan. 6) The Commissioner (Appeals) ought not to have merely repeated the AO's order even after the income declared and the payment made to bank to the tune of Rs. 3,05,000. In view of the above grounds and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed and justice may be rendered''. 5. The brief facts of the case are as under: The appellant is an individual engaged in the business of real estate. There was search and seizure operations conducted in the case of one Shri. D. Ramagopal on 27.11.2013. During the search proceedings, certain incriminating materials belonging to the appellant wer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of loan in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. The Assessing Officer had not brought any material on record to demonstrate that the amounts were utilized for some other purpose. Thus, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the addition of Rs. 3,05,000/- without giving any valid reason. The ld. CIT(A) ought not have confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that repayment of loan amount was not accounted in the books of accounts, as this cannot be reason for making the impugned addition. Thus, we delete the addition of Rs. 3,05,000/- made by the Assessing Officer. The appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.2679/CHNY/2017 for assessment year 2009-2010 stands allowed. 11. Now, we take up appeal of the assessee in ITA No.2982/ CHNY/2017 for assessment year 2011-2012 for adjudication. 12. The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal: ''1) The Commissioner (Appeals) order is against law and facts of the case. 2) The CIT (A) ought to not to have rejected the opening the balance of Rs. 9,90,000 as advance received from the parties without considering the previous year assessm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Accordingly, notice u/s.153C of the Act was issued on 07.07.2015 requiring the assessee to file return of income for the assessment year 2011-12. In response, no return of income was filed and subsequently the assessment was completed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore (hereinafter referred as ''Assessing Officer'') on 30.03.2016 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s153C of the Act at total income of Rs. 1,31,32,450/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made following additions. 1 Land at NSR Road 65,49,000 2 Land at Ponnayyarajapuram 12,50,000 3 Agricultural land at Karumbapalayam 15,88,355 4 Land and building at Narasimmanayakanpalayam 10,90,000 5 Land at Palani 5,00,000 When the appellant was called upon to explain the source for the investments in the above properties, it was mentioned that investments were made out of opening cash balance of Rs. 49,50,550/-, agricultural and business income of Rs. 15,67,840/-, advance received from the parties against sale of property in Ponnayarajapuram land of Rs. 24,75,000/- and advance received from sale of house property situated at Vayyapuri Nagar, Karur from one Shri. S.Kannan Rs. 30,00,000/-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ransaction of loan amount of Rs. 19,70,000/-, since assessee had failed to prove the loan transaction. Similarly, the Assessing Officer believed agricultural income and brought to tax. Similarly, the Assessing Officer also brought to tax investment made in land at NSR Road as unexplained investments including a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- for realization of said property. The Assessing Officer also disbelieved Rs. 20,50,000/- stated to have received from Shri.Kannan against sale of property at Karur and accordingly brought to tax sum of Rs. 1,25,63,050/-. 14. Being aggrieved by the above additions, an appeal was preferred before ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order held that addition on account of unexplained opening balance should be restricted to Rs. 34,27,090/- as the Assessing Officer himself accepted agricultural income of Rs. 12,56,050/-. In respect of advance received from Shri. Kannan of Rs. 20,50,000/-, the ld. CIT(A) opined that no addition was called for, since the Assessing Officer himself assessed capital gains for assessment year 2010-2011. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. 15. Aggrieved by that part of the ld. CIT(A) order, which is against assessee, the ass....