TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 118
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sly erred in law & facts in confirming the reassessment proceedings without appreciating the facts that notice u/s 148 could not have been served upon assessee. 3. Addition made of Rs. 9,00,000/- by treating it as unexplained source. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law & facts in confirming the addition up to Rs. 9,00,000/- by deleting only Rs. 2,00,000/- in place of Rs. 11,00,000/- treating as unexplained source while fully explained by the assessee appellant with full evidences before authorities below. 4. Addition made without providing show cause notice; The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law & facts in confirming the addition as made by Ld. AO without substantiating the ground that addition is made without giving the show cause notice. 5. Not providing proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard; The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law & facts in confirming the addition without appreciating the facts that addition was made, without providing proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law & facts in confirming the provision u/s 115BBE of Income Tax Act 1961. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....F-115B, Mahesh Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur for a consideration of Rs. 16,07,295/- including registration charges. The assessee had paid consideration by cheque of Rs. 4,00,000/- and cash of Rs. 11,00,000/- On being asked to explain the source of the purchase consideration, the assessee had not explained the source of payment for purchase of plot. Thereafter, necessary notices were issued and finally the assessment was completed U/s 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) determining total income of the assessee at Rs. 13,24,200/- by making addition U/s 68 of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the A.O., the assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A), who after considering the submissions of the parties and material placed on record, upheld the action taken by the A.O. 6. Against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred the present appeal on the grounds mentioned above. 7. Firstly we take legal grounds of appeal being grounds No. 1 and 2 and additional grounds of appeal No. 1 and 2 respectively. In this regard, the ld. AR has reiterated the same arguments as were raised before the ld. CIT(A) and also relied on the written....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase of plot is not explained. Therefore, notice u/s 148 was issued on 26.09.2016 after recording reasons and taking prior approval from the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Jaipur. Further, notice u/s 142(1) alongwith query letter was issued on 11.08.2017. The case was fixed for hearing on 22.08.2017. The assessee has requested for adjournment on 22.08.2017 and 29.08.2017. The case adjourned for 01.09.2017. Vide letter dated 18.09.2017 the assessee was advised to file the return in compliance to notice issued u/s 148. The assessee has filed her return of income in compliance to the notice u/s 148 on 09.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 2,24,200/- and furnished a copy of same in this office on 11.10.2017. Notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 11.10.2017. In compliance to the notices Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, CA and AR of the assessee attended the proceedings and filed written reply. The case is discussed with him." (ii) During the appellate proceedings, the appellant raised the ground that notice u/s 148 of the Act has been issued on borrowed satisfaction and notice has not been served on the appellant. (iii) I have duly considered the submissions of the appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laced on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs ITO [1999] 236 ITR 34 (SC), wherein it was held by their lordship that: "In this case, we do not have to give a final decision as to whether there is suppression of material facts by the assessee or not. We have only to see whether there was prima facie some material on the basis of which the Department could reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this stage. Vie are of the view that the court cannot strike down the reopening of the case in the facts of this case. It will be open .to the assessee to prove that the assumption of facts made in the notice was erroneous. The assessee may also prove that no new facts came to the knowledge of the Income-tax Officer after completion of the assessment proceeding. We are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The questions of fact and law are left open to be investigated and decided by the assessing authority. The appellant will be entitled to take all the points before the assessing authority. The appeals are dismissed." (vi) The appellant has also raised t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd also participated in the assessment proceedings. This itself indicates that the notice was received by the assessee. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) and passed a speaking order discussing all the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere into or deviate from the findings so recorded by the ld. CIT(A). Hence, we uphold the proceedings with regard to initiation of proceeding U/s 147 of the Act. Accordingly, grounds No. 1 and 2 and additional grounds No. 1 and 2 are dismissed. 12. Grounds No. 3 to 8 of the appeal raised by the assessee are interrelated and interconnected and relates to confirming the addition of Rs. 9,00,000/- out of Rs. 11,00,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit U/s 68 of the Act for purchase of property. 13. Having considered the rival contentions and carefully perused the material placed on record. As per the facts of the present case, we observed that the assessee is a regular income tax assessee and filing her return of income. The A.O. had issued notice U/s 148 of the Act on the reason that assessee had purchased ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the assessee submitted copy of agreement dated 28/08/2018 where property was agreed to be purchased for Rs. 15,00,000/- by Shri Naveen Sharma husband of the assessee wherein Rs. 4,00,000/- were paid by Cheque and Rs. 5,00,00/- by cash on 15/10/2012 thus in this way till this agreement Rs. 9,00,000/- were paid and Rs. 6,00,000/- were pending. Subsequently, this Property was finally purchased through registered deed by the assessee on 07/11/2012. In the registered documents, earlier payment of Rs. 9,00,000/- were recorded and further payment of Rs. 6,00,000/- paid in cash on 07/11/2012 was also recorded. As per above two documents Rs. 11,00,000/- were paid in cash, Rs. 5,00,000/- on 15/10/2012 and Rs. 6,00,000/- on 07/11/2012. For explaining the source of cash payment of Rs. 11,00,000/-, the assessee filed cash flow statement of self and her husband Shri Naveen Sharma where the assessee has shown Rs. 2,50,000/- paid by Smt. Anjana Sharma on 07/11/2012 while Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 3,50,000/- were paid by Shri Naveen Sharma on 15/10/2012 and 07/11/2012 respectively. In the revised cash flow statement filed during the appellate proceedings we noticed that opening cash balance of R....