TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 557
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sustaining the addition of Rs. 14,00,000/-. The addition be deleted 3. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) has without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 716000/- on account of the typographical error inadvertently committed in the office of the authorised representative by mentioning the date of 19.04.2007 for the consolidated withdrawal of Rs. 1666000/- as against the factual withdrawals of Rs. 950000/- each, as on 19.04.2007 and 20.04.2007 respectively. The addition be deleted 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal before the same in taken up for final disposal." 2. From the aforesaid grounds, it would be clear that the grievance of the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had not supplied the copy of statement by citing the reasons of old record, a request was made for directing the said bank to provide the required bank statement. 4.1. The AO observed that details of the bank accounts of the assessee revealed that the opening balance as on 19.04.2007 was 'nil' and an amount of Rs. 20 lacs was credited on 19.04.2007, therefore, the claim of the assessee that he had invested in the impugned property by raising a loan from Centurial Bank of Punjab was contrary to the facts on record as the said property had been transferred to the assessee through Registered Deed on 22.01.2007 i.e. three months before the amount credited to his account. The AO also observed that no explanation had been submitted by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 6. The ld. CIT(A) forwarded the additional evidences furnished by the assessee to the AO for his comments. In response, the AO stated that the addition was rightly made on account of failure on the part of the assessee to explain satisfactorily the source of investment and objected for admission of additional evidences. On merit, the AO submitted the report as under: "Firstly, it is submitted that the source explained by the assessee now during the course of appellate proceedings is contrary to the source explained by him before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings". Secondly, the assessee has now claimed that the payment of Rs. 14,00,000/- in cash was made to the seller Sh. Om Parkash as part payment of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... only been withdrawn by the assessee. The assessee has failed to establish the source of purchase of land at the time of completion of assessment under selection 143(3)/147 and also by filing of additional evidence before your goodself." 7. The ld. CIT(A) forwarded the aforesaid remand report of the AO to the assessee for comments/submissions. The ld. CIT(A) after considering submissions of the assessee and the remand report of the AO, sustained the addition of Rs. 23,09,930/- by observing in para 6.3.1 of the impugned order as under: "6.3.1. ...........Assessing Officer has given reasonable opportunity during course of assessment proceeding. During appeal proceedings assessee has requested for admission of additional evidence as the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the extent of Rs. 23,09,930/- (Rs. 32,59,960/- - Rs. 9,50,000/-). Grounds of appeal No. 2 and 3 are partly allowed." 8. Now the assessee is in appeal. 9. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that neither the AO nor the ld. CIT(A) considered the facts in right perspective. It was further submitted that the date mentioned as 19.04.2007 for making the payment to the seller was a typographical mistake. It was stated that the payment was actually made on 20.04.2007 by making the withdrawal of Rs. 9,50,000/- each on 19.04.2007 and 20.04.2007 from the HDFC Bank. It was submitted that the then Advocate of the assessee informed vide letter dated 28.11.2006 to the ld. CIT(A) that the mistake was inadvertent and the payment was made on 20.....