TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 418
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mstances of the case, is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The ld CIT is not justified in setting aside the assessment u/s.263 without pointing out specific insufficiency in the enquiries caused by the AO especially when the AO has considered the all the material on record and made necessary enquiries. 3. The ld CIT failed to appreciate the fact that the entire transaction of receipt of advance and subsequent repayment was fully examined in the proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 and hence, order of the AO is not erroneous. 4. The ld CIT is not justified in questioning the financial capacity of the persons giving advance against purchase, especially ignoring the fact that the AO having examined the farmers as we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ition (Civil) No(s) 3/2020 took suo moto cognizance of the difficulties faced by the citizens of the Country on account of COVID-19 pandamic by which litigants are facing challenges in filing their petitions/applications/suits/appeals within the period of limitation and ordered that the period of limitation in all such proceedings shall stand extended with effect from 15th March, 2020 till further orders and declared that the order should be a binding order within the meaning of Article 141 on all Courts/Tribunals and authorities. Hence, the assessee filed appeal on 19.2.2021 causing a delay of 291 days. It was prayed that the delay caused be condoned. Ld CIT DR did not oppose to the condonation of delay application of the assessee/applican....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....263 of the Act dated 26.2.2020 the ld. CIT (IT&TP) set aside the assessment order and directed the AO to make a fresh assessment and examine the source of cash deposits. Against the order u/s 263 of the Act, the assessee has preferred this appeal. 7. Ld A.R. submitted that the impugned sum of Rs. 2.25 crores were received by the assessee from two agriculturists i.e. Sri Kandimalla Venkateshwarlu and Sri Kandimalla Ramanaidu, towards advance for purchase of assessee's ancestral house property located in Nellore in the assessment year 2013-14. He submitted that the said amount was returned back to both the agriculturists in subsequent assessment years i.e. 2014-15 & 2015-16 since the parties could not fulfil the agreed terms and conditions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore the ld CIT(A). 8. Ld A.R. submitted that in the assessment years 2014-15 & 2015-16, the AO accepted the sources for the repayments to the extent of Rs. 1.16 crores and the balance amount of Rs. 1.09 crores was added, implying thereby that the advance payment by Sri Kandimalla Venkateshwarly and Sri Kandimalla Ramanaidu is admitted to be genuine and the source of later year, partly could not be proved. He also submitted that the request of the assessee to avail the benefits under VSVS was accepted for the assessment years 2014-15 & 2015-16. He, accordingly, submitted that the Ld CIT was not justified in revising the assessment order, which was passed after thorough enquiry and verification of the source of payment. 9. Replying to a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 20.7.2018. 10. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record of the case. We find that the assessee has filed a chronological events from 30.7.2012 i.e. date of agreement for sale of Nellore Property to two farmers upto 26.2020 i.e. on the date the Ld CIT rejected the claim of the assessee without pointing out any particular defect in the assessment order. We find that on 23.1.2015 and 23.2.2015, notices u/s.133(6) of the Act were issued by the ITO (Inv.& CI) enquiring about cash deposits made into the NRO account of the assessee and in response to those notices, on 30.1.2015 and 25.10.2017, the assessee filed explanations alongwith sale agreement, cancellation agreement, aadhar numbers, etc in support of the claim of t....