TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 1194
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,900/- to Rs. 34,50,000/- made u/s 69 of the Act ignoring the fact that the AO, in his remand report has clearly mentioned that out of unsecured loan of Rs. 1,15,64,000/-, loan to the tune of Rs. 69,75,000/- was not verifiable in addition to payment of Rs. 1,26,30,900/- (Rs. 2,41,94,900 - Rs. 1,15,64,000) which was made by the assessee in cash for making investment in purchase of properties." ITA No. 620/JP/2019 (Assessee's appeal) "1. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in conforming the addition made by the AO u/s 69 to the extent of Rs. 34,50,000/- ignoring the fact that addition u/s 69 can only be made when the investment is not recorded in the books of accounts. 2. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in enhancing the assessment by Rs. 14,48,700/- on account of expenses incurred on stamps duty simply on the basis of remand report of the AO, without providing the assessee on opportunity to rebut it. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has purchased certain pieces of land situated at Village- Vatika, Tehsil- Sanganer, Jaipur bearing Khasra No. 1182....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. AR however supported the finding of the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the ld CIT(A) has taken into consideration the remand report submitted by the Assessing Officer and has held that issue with respect to Rs. 69,75,000/- remains to be adjudicated upon as the same has not been found satisfactorily explained at the end of the Assessing Officer. Thereafter, out of Rs. 69,75,000/-, he has found the transactions to the extent of Rs. 35,25,000/- as duly explained by the assessee and remaining transactions of Rs. 34,50,000/- have been found as not satisfactorily explained and to that extent, the additions were sustained. It was submitted that the assessee is in appeal as far as the additions sustained by the ld. CIT(A) however as far as relief granted by the ld. CIT(A), there is no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) and the assessee thus relies on the order of the ld. CIT(A) and the same should be confirmed. 6. Now coming to the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee vis-à-vis the addition of Rs. 34,50,000/- sustained by the ld. CIT(A) and enhancement of income by Rs. 14,48,700/- done by the ld CIT(A). 7. In this regard, the ld. AR submitted that the appellant had purc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly relying on the remand report held these amounts to be unexplained. 10. It was submitted that undoubtedly, the assessee has a legal duty to identify the creditors in addition to his means and genuineness of the transaction. Also it is a matter of fact that where the identities of creditors are shown by the assessee, the department is at liberty to proceed against such creditor wherever required. This view has been upheld by the Tribunal in the case of Mrs. Ranjana Katyal Vs ACIT (2008) 1 DTR (Del)(Trib) 24 and Pankaj Sawhney Vs ITO (2004) 3 SOT 1 (Del). In this case, the identity and the address was shown by the appellant. 11. It was further submitted that it is presumed, subject to rebuttal, that transaction cannot be considered as bogus when the funds are routed through bank accounts as they cannot be considered as unaccounted monies being the purpose for which the provision was introduced and also the bank statements are very much subject to scrutiny of the department. In support, reliance was placed on decision in case of S.K.Jain Vs ITO (2004) 2 SOT 579 (Agra). Thus, it had become fairly settled law that assessee is not required to satisfy the Assessing Authority of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submitted that the remand report submitted by the Assessing Officer wherein he has highlighted the said fact has been shared with assessee and therefore, the assessee was put to the notice by the ld. CIT(A) and therefore, it is not correct to say that the assessee was not provided an opportunity by the ld. CIT(A) before making such addition. The ld. DR accordingly supported the order and the findings of ld. CIT(A) in this regard. 15. We have heard the rival submissions and purused the material available on record. During the year under consideration, the assessee has purchased certain pieces of land situated at Village Vatika, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur bearing Khasra No. 1182 to 1221, 1223 to 1235, 1242 to 1248 from Sh. Lachhu, Sh. Sultan, Sh. Arjun and Sh. Prabhu Narayan for a total consideration of Rs. 2,41,94,000/-. The conveyance deeds for the purchase of these pieces of land were registered with Sub-Registrar, Sanganer, Jaipur on 21.11.2011 and an amount of Rs. 14,48,700/- was also paid towards the stamp duty. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to explain source of funds which were used in purchasing the said pieces of land vide show cause dat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ansactions. The ld CIT(A) taking the remand report into consideration held that issue with respect of Rs. 69,75,000/- remains to be adjudicated upon as the same has not been found satisfactorily explained at the end of the AO. Thereafter, after considering the submissions of the assessee, held that out of Rs. 69,75,000/-, Rs. 35,25,000/- has been found explained and remaining Rs. 34,50,000/- remains unexplained and the additions were thus restricted to Rs. 34,50,000/-. Further, the ld CIT(A) made an addition of Rs. 14,48,700/- towards the payment of stamp duty. 16. The undisputed facts which are thus emerging from the perusal of records are that there is an investment of Rs. 2,41,94,000/-in purchase of the aforesaid pieces of land besides stamp duty of Rs. 14,48,700/- totalling to Rs. 2,56,42,700/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the source of such investment was sought to be examined by the AO. The source of such investment has been claimed by the assessee by way of unsecured loans of Rs. 82,14,000/- during the financial year 2011-12 and Rs. 33,50,000/- during the financial year 2012-13 totalling to Rs. 1,15,64,000/- and remaining amount of Rs. 1,40,78,700/- is....