TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 618
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....recently, and therefore delay of 111 days in filing the CO and pleaded to condone the delay in filing CO. The assessee also produced before us copy of pass-port and visa issued by the USA. The ld.DR appearing for the Revenue has no serious objection in condoning the delay. 3. We are satisfied with the affidavit filed by the assessee, and we hereby condone the delay in filing CO. 4. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual drawing salary from partnership firm viz. Monarch Infra Venture and showing income from capital gain and income from other sources. For the Asst.Year 2014-15, the assessee filed his return of income on 29.3.2016 declaring total income at Rs.2,21,880/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) on 28.4.2016 and then taken for scrutiny assessment, since there was huge investment in immovable property as compared to the total income returned by the assessee. The assessee is working in a private firm and also partner in the firm viz. Monarch Infra Venture. During this financial year, the assessee purchased three immovable properties on behalf of the partnership firm, as one of the partners. The assessee's share as per the purchase deed i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 2,48,75,6847-. Further, the appellant has also relied upon the various judicial pronouncements of various Hon'ble High Courts & Tribunals in his Synopsis of Arguments dated 17/07/2017 submitted before your honour are as under: i) DCIT v. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj.) 256 ITR 360 ii) CIT Vs. RanchhodJivabhaiNakhava (Tax Appeal No.50 of 2011) iii) CIT vs. Apex Therm Packaging (P.)Ltd.[2014] 42 Taxman.com 473 [Gujarat-HC] iv) CIT Vs Dharmadev Finance (P.)(Ltd.)[2014] 43 Taxman.Com 395(GUJ. HC) v) CIT Vs Patel Ramniklal Hirji [2014] 41 Taxman.Com 493/222 Taxman 15 (Mag.)(GUJ.HC) vi) CIT V Shailesh Kumar Rasiklal Mehta [2014] 41 Taxman.Com 550/224 Taxman 212 (Mag.) (Guj) vii) CIT V Rahul Vineet Traders [2014] 41 Taxman.Com 86/221 Taxman 46 (Mag.) (All.) viii) CIT V Vijay Kumar Jain[2014] 41 Taxman.Com 433/221 Taxman 180 (Mag.) (All.) ix) CIT V Sachitel Communications (P.) (Ltd.) [2014]51taxman.Com 205/227 Taxman 119 (Mag.) (Guj.) x) Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. [2014] 51 taxmann.com 524 (Punjab & Haryana) xi) CIT vs. JaiKumarBakliwal[2014]366ITR217[Rajshthan-HC] xii)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmitted before your honour which have been mentioned herein above. In view of the aforesaid facts and submission, the addition made by the Ld. A.O of alleged unexplained investment of Rs. 98,70,452/- u/s. 69 of the IT Act deserves to be deleted in toto. Ill UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT INTO THE LAND U/S. 69 OF THE I.T. ACT OF RS.1,36,22,699/- 1. In respect of the aforesaid addition, the Ld. A.O has made an observation that the "Appellant has received the said amount through banking channel and purchased the land. The property has been purchased by the assessee and the payment has been routed through the partners account. However case may be finalized on merits". 2. The Ld. A.O. after verifying additional evidences submitted under Rule 46A of the IT. Rule, 1962 such as copy of the partnership deed, memorandum of undertaking between firm and partners at the time of remand proceedings accepted the contention of the appellant that the appellant along with other 3 farmer partners have acquired different Survey Nos. of land situated at Mouje Gam - Mulsana, Sub-Dist-Kalol and Dist. Gandhinagar in the name of following partners. Sr. No Name of P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e investment in this plots was not explained and he accordingly made an addition of Rs.4,83,68,835/- to the total income of the appellant. The appellant has submitted that the property purchased by him was not unexplained and was in fact purchased by him on account of being a partner in Monarch Infra Venture (MIV) and that all the payments had also been made by MIV through proper banking channels. 4.3.1 During the remand proceedings, the AO has gone through the submissions and documentary evidences furnished by the appellant and has submitted his report (reproduced in para 4.1.1 above) in which the contentions of the appellant have been analysed and discussed by him. It is seen that the AO after verifying all the necessary details has accepted the fact that the amounts of Rs.2,48,75,684/- added u/s. 69 of the Act, Rs.98,70,452/- held as undisclosed Investment in cash deposits and Rs.1,36,22,695/- as unexplained investment in land stands explained. The AO has also stated that the property has been purchased by the appellant and the payments have been made through partners account. 4.3.2 In addition to the report of the AO, it is also seen from the documents furnish....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer in respect of above issues." 8. Though the Revenue has stated that the CIT(A) has erred in deleting every addition made by the AO more particularly in ground no.4, the Revenue has raised that the AO has accepted the issue as explained in the remand report, but the AO has requested to decide the issue on merit only. The ld.counsel for the assessee stated that the ld.AO after verifying the additional evidences submitted under Rule 46A of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, such as copy of confirmation of various parties, copy of acknowledgment of return of income of M.T. Corporation at the time of assessment proceedings accepted contentions of the assessee in respect of genuineness of credit-worthiness of the parties from whom the assessee had received unsecured loans during the year under consideration. Thus, the AO has not made any adverse comments in his remand report on account of unexplained credit entries in HDFC Bank of Rs.2,48,75,684/-. Therefore, the ld.CIT(A) after following judicial precedents deleted addition made on account of ....