TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (7) TMI 681
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not cured by the ld. AO u/s 292B of the Act even after being pointed out about such mistake by the appellant during the assessment proceedings and the assessment was finalized without curing such omission. Thus the assessment order so passed was bad in law and deserved to be quashed. 1(c) The ld. CIT(A) has factually and legally erred in overlooking the Ground regarding 'validity' of the re-assessment proceedings initiated u/s 147/148 of the Act. Thus the appeal order so passed is not a well reasoned and logical order and the same deserves to be quashed summarily. 2(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has factually and legally erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 6,17,720/- made by the ld. AO without appreciating the facts of the case in right perspective. In the process, the ld. CIT(A) has also ignored the vital facts and documented details as submitted during the assessment and appeal proceedings. Thus the appeal order so passed is not a well-considered/reasoned order to be quashed summarily. 2(b) Further, in the process, the ld. CIT(A) has also deviated from the findings of the ld. AO to confirm this addition, with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....view of section 147 of the I.T.Act, 1961 and it is a fit case of issue notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961." 3. Thereafter, in response to notice u/s 148, assessee filed her return of income on 27.04.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 1,86,800/- including capital loss of Rs. 21,280/- from the sale of the aforesaid property. Thereafter, the AO completed the assessment wherein he disallowed cost of construction of Rs. 6,29,000/- in absence of any evidence towards cost of construction in terms of vouchers/bills of construction material, valuation report of approved valuer etc. The AO accordingly computed short term capital of Rs. 6,17,720/- as against short term capital loss of Rs. 21,280/- claimed by the assessee in her return of income. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the relevant finding of ld. CIT(A) reads as under:- "3.3 I have perused the facts of the case, the assessment order and the submissions of the appellant. Regarding cost of construction not being allowed by the Assessing Officer, it is seen that assessee's husband in his statement recorded, admitted the cost of Rs. 3,50,000/- was incurred on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....port which was submitted in support of the cost of construction undertaken on the aforesaid property. It was further submitted that valuation report was duly submitted even before the ld. CIT(A), however, the same has been ignored by both the lower authorities. 7. It was further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has factually and legally erred in deviating from the findings of the Assessing Officer without assigning any reasons and has gone ahead and made the addition u/s 69 without providing any opportunity to the assessee. It was further submitted that the quantum of the addition as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is also not fair and justified. In the above referred findings, the ld. CIT (A) had observed that husband of the appellant had admitted investment of Rs. 3,50,000/- in the said property and the amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- was received from father-in-law which was 'acceptable'. Having considered these facts and figures, no such addition was called for. In fact, total investment of Rs. 15,21,280/- was made in the said property; which included the purchase of the property and the construction works undertaken thereon. For the purpose, appellant had received bank loan of Rs. 10,50,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....explanation was turned down by the ld. AO on the plea that such 'working' was not shown while filing the original return. Accordingly, the 'Valuation Certificate' submitted in support of such construction works was also ignored without assigning any reason and had disallowed the entire cost of construction of Rs. 6,17,720/- to make the addition of equal amount; ignoring the bank loan of Rs. 10,50,000/- and amounts received from her husband and father-in-law. No addition what-so-ever was however made on account of the un-explained investment of Rs. 2,89,720/ as stated in the reasons. From the above discussions, it is seen that both the authorities have been taking contradictory view in respect of the cost of construction and investment made therein as per their personal whims. More-over the explanation regarding sources of investment as explained vide letter dated 4.12.2017 was never questioned, thus warranting no adverse view as evident from the assessment order. Again, the ld. CIT (A) had no reason to change the head of addition without allowing any opportunity to the appellant. And lastly, the quantum of the addition of Rs. 6,17,720/- as confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) did not co....