TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 8
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s condoned on account of assessee's no objection. 2. The Revenue's sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal challenges the correctness of CIT(A)'s action deleting unexplained investment addition of Rs. 1,76,00,000/- made by Assessing officer in his assessment order dated 30.12.2019. Lower appellate discussion deleting the impugned addition to this effect reads as under. "9. CIT(A) decision: Ground no: 1 relates to the entire addition of Rs. 1,76,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer treating the same as unexplained investment in purchase of the property, in the appellant's hands: I have carefully considered the facts of the case, the assessment order made by the Assessing Officer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... course of appellate proceedings, the Authorized Representative of the appellant contended that as mentioned in the facts of the Case, the property mentioned at Sl. no: 01 of the statement extracted above, valued at Rs. 44,00,000/- was acquired jointly by the appellant and her late husband Shri Pendela Surendra. Thus, the appellant's share of Rs. 22,00,000/- should have been considered in the her. The other three properties mentioned at sl. nos. 02, 03 and 04, the aggregate value of which comes to Rs. 1,32,00,000/- was acquired by the appellant's late husband Shri Pendela Surendra, as these properties were exclusively acquired by the latter. The sources for investment made by the appellant and her late husband are explained in their....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2,00,000/-+ Rs. 22,00,000/-). Since, the appellant's husband Shri Pendela Surendra was alive during the entire financial year 2014-15 relevant to assessment year 2015-16 and since separate and individual return of income for the A.Y. 2015-16 was filed in the name of Shri Pendela Surendra, the proper course of action left to the Assessing Officer is to make an assessment making the deceased's wife Smt. Pendela Bharathi Devi i.e. The appellant as LR of late Sri Pendela Surendra wherein the issue of investment of Rs. 1,54,00,000/- made by Shri Pendela Surendra should have been considered. For these reasons, I hold that the Assessing Officer is not at all justified in considering the investment of Rs. 1,54,00,000-made by (late) Shri Pen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Officer is directed to delete the addition of Rs. 1,54,00,000/- pertaining to the investment made by appellant's late husband Shri Pendela Surendra from the hands of the appellant as the same is to be considered in the hands of Smt. P Bharathi Devi, as Legal Representative(LR) of late Shri Pendela Surendra for the A.Y. 2015-16 as per the decision taken in the paragraph 06 against on the addition made on account of investment of Rs. 1,54,00,000/- 12. CIT(A) Decision against Ground no: 04 against addition of Rs. 1,76,00,000/- as the sources of funds were explained: Since the appellant explained the sources for her investment of Rs. 22,00,000/- in acquiring the immovable property were properly explained, and since the in....