TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 765
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder section 147 of the Act, for the reasons that the assessee has failed to furnish the source of investment in purchase of immovable property amounting to Rs. 60,00,000/-during the F.Y. 2010-11 relevant to the A.Y. under consideration i.e; A.Y. 2011-12. The A.O. issued notice under section 148 of the Act. In response to the said notice the assessee submitted that the return already filed on 29/09/2011 declaring the income of Rs. 6,74,620/- may be treated in response to the notice under section 148 of the Act. The A.O. issued the notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act alongwith questionnaire on 22/11/2018, in response to which the assessee filed written replies on 30/11/2018 and 18/12/2018. The A.O. observed that the necessary informations /details as called for from time to time had been filed and placed on record and that the case was discussed with the counsel of the assessee in detail, he framed the assessment at the same income which was declared by the assessee by making the following observation: (i) During the year assessee earned commission income besides having other sources income. (ii) All the replies, information and documents submitted by the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....42,437/- as per agreement to sell whereas as per sale deed dt. 23/12/2010, the amount of investment was Rs. 61,98,800/- only. He further observed that there was a difference in the registered value and the value of agreement to sell of Rs. 57,42,437/- (1,17,42,437 - 60,00,000 ). He therefore was of the view that source of investment in immovable property amounting to Rs. 57,42,437/- remained unexplained and that the A.O. simply accepted the paper which were placed on record without application of mind which made the assessment order erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Ld. Pr. CIT held that the A.O. should have conducted detailed enquiry on the above issue and the source of investment amounting to Rs. 57,42,437/- should have examined in detail by conducting enquiry and calling for documentary evidences. According to the Ld. Pr. CIT, the assessee and also the person from whom the property was purchased should have been examined so that the fact regarding the amount and source of investment in property might have been determined and brought to tax. The reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the following case laws: * M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was submitted that the Ld. Pr. CIT at page no. 2 of the impugned order in para 3 has stated that the A.O. had not conducted inquiries regarding the difference of Rs. 57,42,437/- (Rs. 1,17,42,437/- (-) Rs. 60,000/-) i.e; difference in the value of immovable property as per agreement to sell and the value shown in the sale deed. It was stated that the assumption of the Ld. Pr. CIT was wrong as the A.O. issued show cause notice dt. 22/11/2018, conducted inquiries from the other co-owners as well as witnesses of the alleged agreement. The assessee filed a detailed reply, copy of which is placed at page no. 23 to 27, the A.O. after considering the reply of the assessee and by making other inquiries which are placed at page no. 28 to 40 of the assessee's compilation, had taken a possible view as per law, therefore, the Ld. Pr. CIT was not justified in holding that the A.O. had not conducted inquiries and completed assessment in casual manner and that the assessee had not submitted any reply during the assessment proceedings, contrary to the facts on record that the assessee furnished detailed reply to the A.O. 6.3 It was further submitted that although the Ld. Pr. CIT observed that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jaswant Rai Vs. CWT Patiala reported at 107 ITR 477. 6.5 It was further submitted that the order has been passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT in haste which is the violation of principles of natural justice. It was pointed out that the first notice appearing in e-portal was dt. 17/03/2021 fixing the case for 18/03/2021 and the order under section 263 was passed on 19/03/2021. As such the inadequate time allowed by the Ld.Pr. CIT was contrary to the principles of natural justice, and therefore the consequential action of setting aside the assessment order was nullity. The reliance was placed on the decision of the ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Smt. Shardaben B. Patel Vs. Pr. CIT-5 reported at 2019(9) TMI 1178. 6.6 It was also submitted that the Ld. Pr. CIT only asked the A.O. to conduct inquiries which had already been done by the A.O and there were three coowners, the value of the property in the hands of two co-owners had been accepted and no action was taken under section 263 of the Act while in assessee's case the Ld. Pr. CIT did not accept the value of the property which is against the principle of natural justice. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Act and submitted as under: " 1. The learned A.O. has not recorded his subjective satisfaction regarding escapement of income i.e. Rs. 11742437/- or Rs. 6000000/-. 2. That the reasons recorded are very much vague and are based simply on borrowed information. 3. That the very basis of farming the brief is contradictory and the A.O. is not sure to the extent of income escaped. 4. That without applying mind to the information received, recorded that the discussion made above give sufficient basis for forming reason to believe that the income of Rs. 11742437/- has escaped assessment which clearly shows that the A.O. proceeded to initiate assessment proceeding and reopening of assessment without having any valid satisfaction on the basis of information received as there was no independent application of mind to the tangible material on record. He has nowhere concluded that he has reason to believe that a particular income has escaped assessment. And moreover it is also placed on record that the assessment could only be reopened on the basis of any concealed income which has escaped assessment and not for any other income which may subsequently comes to the notice of the A.O. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cres 4 Kanal 13 Marla for Rs. 60,00,000/- on 23.12.2010 from Sh. Nirmal Singh S/o Sh. Pritam Singh, R/o Village Landi, Tehsil Shahabad Markanda, Distt Kurukshetra, whereas as per agreement executed on 10.09.2010, the assessee has purchased the above mentioned immovable property measuring 5 Acres 4 Kanal 13 Marla for Rs. 1,17,82,000/- (@ Rs. 21,11,000/- per Acre) from Sh. Nirmal Singh S/o Sh. Pritam Singh, R/o Village Landi, Tehsil Shahabad Markanda, Distt Kurukshetra and given Rs. 16,00,000/- as Biana/ Advance money through Bank Draft No. 405541 dated 10.09.2010. From the perusal of copy of Biana executed on 10.09.2010 between Sh. Nirmal Singh, Des Raj sons of Sh. Pritam Singh and Sh, Randeep Singh & Sh. Hardeep Singh(1st Party) and Smt..Monika W/o Sh. Manish Kumar Aggarwal S/o Sh. Rajinder Kumar Aggarwal, Smt. Aditi W/o Sh. Sachin Kumar Aggarwal S/o Sh. Rajinder Kumar Aggarwal and Smt. Swati W/o Sh. Anish Kumar Aggarwal S/o Sh. Rajinder Kumar Aggarwal, R/o H.No. 938, Sector-7, U.E, Ambala City, it is found that the assessee alongwith others has made an agreement for purchase of immovable property @ Rs. 21,11,000/- per Acre and paid advance money through bank drafts. This agreement....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... taking the action under section 263 of the Act stated that the A.O. failed to make any independent inquiry to verify the fact relating to the purchase of immovable property by the assessee. On the contrary the documents placed on record clearly shows that the A.O. made the inquiries in depth and accepted the explanation given by the assessee as well as the co-owner. The assessment framed in the hands of the co-owners namely Smt. Monica Aggarwal W/o Shri Manish Kumar and Smt. Swati Aggarwal W/o Shri Avnish Aggarwal in whose cases also the assessments were reopened under section 147 of the Act and were framed under section 143(3) of the Act vide separate orders dt. 28/12/2018 and 27/12/2018 respectively. Those assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act in the hands of the co-owners had been accepted. The only objection was taken to the assessment famed in the hands of the assessee under section 263 of the Act which is against the principle of consistency. 8.6 Moreover the A.O. after making the proper inquiry relating to the property in question accepted the explanation. Therefore, it cannot be said that the A.O. failed to make the proper inquiries while accepting the explana....