TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 206
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in not allowing the A.O to cross examine nor examine the submissions, explanations provided before the appellate authority. 4. The appellant prays that the order of the ld. CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the assessing officer be restored. 5. The appellant craves leave to amend or to alter any ground or add a new ground, which may be necessary." 2. Briefly stated, the assessee had e-filed her return of income for A.Y 2015-16 on 09.12.2016, declaring a total income of Rs. 22,33,800/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment under "Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection" (for short "CASS"), for the reason, that the investments in property made by her during the year were not commensurate to her returned income. 3. During the course of the assessment proceedings the A.O issued notices under Sec.142(1) on various dates, viz 21.09.2017; 26.10.2017; 09.11.2017; 17.11.2017 and 30.11.2017, wherein the assessee was inter alia called upon to furnish details of the properties that were purchased by her during the year along with the sources thereof. However, the assessee despite specific directions failed to furnish the requisite deta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts of the same. It was the claim of the assessee that during the year in reference only the 'agreements' were entered into and registered with respect to the properties in question which were still under construction and full amount was not paid in any of the cases. It was the claim of the assessee that whatever amount was paid, the same, except for an amount of Rs. 13,32,000/-, pertained to the earlier years On the basis of her aforesaid contentions, it was the claim of the assessee that the A.O without perusing the contents of the 'agreements' had simply added the stamp duty value of the properties in question as were reflected in the AIR report. In sum and substance, it was the claim of the assessee that she had only entered into the respective 'agreements' during the year in question, and except for an investment of Rs. 13,32,000/- had not made any other investment during the year under consideration. Insofar the investment of Rs. 13,32,000/- was concerned, it was the claim of the assessee that the same was sourced from her duly disclosed sources reflected in the return of income for the year under consideration. For the sake of clarity the submissions filed by the assessee q....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a - Rs. 3,21,95,300 2.6.1. Please refer the Agreement dated 5th May, 2014 for purchase of the immovable property - refer page nos. 6 to 91 of the paper book. On perusal of the same, particularly, para 1 of the agreement (page no 12 of the paper book), it can be seen that the property is under construction on execution of the Agreement. 2.6.2. Further, please refer clause 'L' (page no 12 of the paper book andreceipt of the seller (page no 31 of the paper/book). It is evident that the appellant has made payments aggregating to Rs. 78,30,182 till the date of execution of the Agreement. 2.6.3. The Assessing Officer has made the impugned addition on the basis of the Agreement obtained by him from the office of Jt. Sub Registrar, Mumbai. Thus, copy of the Agreement is in the possession of the Assessing Officer. The said Agreement specifically states, as mentioned above, that the appellant has made payments aggregating Rs. 78,30,182 till the date of execution of the agreement The Assessing Officer, thus, could not have made the impugned addition of Rs. 3,21,95,300 when the appellant has made investment only of a sum of Rs. 78,30,182. 2.6.4. Further, the appellant submits that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he same, particularly, para 4 of the agreement (page no 152 of the paper book), it can be seen that the property is under construction on date of the agreement. 2.8.2. Further, please refer clause 'P' (page no 151 of the paper book) and receipt of the seller (page no 168 of the paper book). It is evident that the appellant has made a payment of Rs. 2,00,000 till the date of agreement, that too during the year ended 31st March, 2012, relevant to assessment near 2012-13. 2.8.3. The appellant submits that the Assessing Officer has made addition only on the basis of agreement obtained from the office of Jt. Sub registrar, Mumbai. Thus, copy of the Agreement is in the possession of the Assessing Officer. On perusal of the receipt issued by the seller on the agreement date, it can be seen that the appellant has made a payment of only Rs. 2,00,000 till the date of agreement, that too during the year ended 31st March, 2012, relevant to assessment year 2012-13 2.8.4. Further, the appellant submits that she has not made any payment towards purchase of the property during the year under reference. 2.8.5. In view of the above, the appellant contends that the Assessing Officer o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....relevant to assessment year 2013-14. 2.10.3. The appellant submits that the Assessing Officer has made addition only on the basis of agreement obtained from the office of Jt. Sub registrar, Mumbai. Thus, copy of the Agreement is in the possession of the Assessing Officer. On perusal of the receipt issued by the seller on the agreement date, it can be seen that the appellant has made a payment of only Rs. 5,00,000 till the date of agreement, that too during the year ended 31st March, 2013, relevant to assessment year 2013-14. 2.10.4. Further, appellant submits that she has not made any payment towards purchase of the property during the year under reference. 2.10.5. In view of the above, the appellant contends that the Assessing Officer ought not to have made an addition during the year under reference, much less on the basis of stamp duty value mentioned on the agreement and hence, the same needs to be deleted. Shop D11 - Premier Exotica - Rs. 47,93,000 2.11.1. Please refer the agreement dated 5th June, 2014 for purchase of the immovable property - refer page nos. 307 to 360 of the paper book. On peru.sal of the same, particularly, para 4 of the agreement (page no 313 of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....copies of the 'agreements' qua the properties in question in the course of the assessment proceedings and filed the same for the very first time before the CIT(A). It was, thus, submitted by the ld. D.R that as the details of the investments were not available with the A.O, therefore, he had rightly relied on the AIR information, and in the absence of any explanation as regards the nature and source of the investments in the properties in question had made the addition u/s 69 or u/s 68 during the year under consideration. It was further submitted by the ld. D.R that though the copies of the 'agreements' were filed by the assessee for the very first time in the course of the proceedings before the CIT(A), however, the latter without calling for the objections of the A.O had in violation of Rule 46A admitted the said additional evidence. 6. Per contra, the ld. Authorized Representative (for short 'A.R') relied on the order of the CIT(A). It was submitted by the ld. A.R that except for the duly explained investment of Rs. 13,32,000/- (supra), as no other investment qua the properties in question was made by the assessee during the year in reference, thus, the CIT(A) had rightly obser....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was called for in its case. 7. We have heard the ld. authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. Before adverting to the merits of the case, we may herein observe, that though the A.O had made the impugned addition of Rs. 6,64,12,3122/- u/s. 69 or u/s Sec. 68 of the Act, however, the revenue in its grounds of appeal had assailed the order of the CIT(A), for the reason, that he had erred in deleting the addition that was made by the A.O u/s 69C of the Act. As the aforesaid mistake appears to have inadvertently crept in on account of a typographical error while drafting the appeal, we, thus, proceed with and deal with the sustainability of the order of the CIT(A), wherein the addition made by the A.O u/s 69 or u/s 68 was vacated by him. As is discernible from the orders of the lower authorities, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment under CASS, for the reason, that the investments in properties made by her during the year under consideration were not found to be commensurate with her returned income for the said year. Admittedly, it is a matter of fact borne from the record....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unt that was paid by the assessee as per the 'agreements' was less than the stamp duty value. Further, it was noticed by the CIT(A) that all the six properties in question were under construction during the year in reference. Also, it was observed by the CIT(A) that a perusal of the 'agreements' revealed that the assessee had not paid any amount during the year under reference, except for an amount of Rs. 13,32,000/- that was paid by her during the year under consideration in respect of one of the property, viz. Flat Nos. 101 & 201- Insignia, vide agreement dated 05.05.2014. It was further observed by the CIT(A), that the amounts that were paid till the date of the 'agreements' qua the properties in question were paid in the earlier years and not in the year under reference. It was observed by the CIT(A) that as the assessee during the year in question had entered into the purchase 'agreements', thus, it was for the said reason that the aforesaid transactions were reflected in her AIR information. Observing, that the assessee had only invested an amount of Rs. 13,32,000/- in the properties in question during the year under consideration, which was sourced from her returned income,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ritten Submissions reproduced above). The AR also produced the copies of each of the agreement. The submissions made be the AR can be summarized as under - "1 Each of the property is under construction. 2. AIR reflects stamp duty value and not the actual transaction value. 3. Actual amount paid by the assessee is less than the stamp duty \ value. 4. The appellant did not pay any amount during the year under reference, except Rs. 13,32,000, in respect of first property. Whatever sum is paid by the assessee was paid in earlier years and not in the year under reference this is also evidenced by the receipt of the seller attached to each of the agreement. 5. The assessee just entered into the purchase agreements during the year under reference and hence, are reflected in the AIR. 6.2 I found the contentions of the AR to be correct. On perusal of each of the agreements, it is evident that the appellant did not make any investment during the year under reference, except for Rs. 13,32,000. It is only that the agreements were entered into and registered during the year under reference. Further, all the properties were still under construction and hence, full amount was not pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded to subscribe to the observation of the CIT(A) that qua all the six 'agreements' the 'agreement value' was less than the 'stamp duty value'. Apart from that, we also concur with his view that though the 'agreements' were executed during the year under consideration, however, only part of the purchase consideration qua the properties in question was paid till the date of execution of the said 'agreements', and except for an amount of Rs. 13,32,000/- (supra) all the remaining payments were made in the preceding years. The aforesaid factual position as gathered from the copies of the six agreements (forming part of the 'APB') and the receipts is culled out as under: Sr. No. Particulars Agreement date Agreement Value (in Rs.) Stamp duty value (in Rs.) Amount paid (up to date of agreement Amount and date of payment (as per receipt/agreements) 1. Flat 101 and 201- Insignia 05.05.2014 2,62,00,000 3,21,95,300 Rs. 78,30,182 (Page 31 - backside of APB) 21.10.2011 Rs. 5,00,000/- 21.10.2011 Rs. 5,00,000/- 09.07.2013 Rs. 9,70,026/- 09.07.2013 Rs. 9,70,026/- 16.09.2013 Rs. 9,70,026/- 06.11.2013 Rs. 4,89,863/- 06.11.2013 Rs. 4,89,863/- 06.11.2014 ....