2022 (11) TMI 1116

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t Year 2016-17 on the following grounds:- "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) has erred in accepting new evidences, including copy of conveyance deed, statement of loan from ICICI Bank & rom M/s. Hotel Shivam, copy of bank statement, loan sanction letter, confirmation of accounts etc. in violation of Rule 46A of I.T Rules, 1962, without even any remand to the A.O. for verification of new evidences. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,95,40,000/- made u/s.68 by the A.O holding that it was investment in property to be u/s.69, overlooking the fact that the A.O has added unexplained sources of credits in the books in the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e assessing officer made the addition for unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act at Rs.2,95,40,000/-. Addition was also made for unexplained expenditure towards registration fee and stamp duty at Rs.16,08,767/- and the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.3,24,70,620/-. 2.1. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and succeeded. The ld. CIT(A) held that firstly the assessing officer erred in making the addition u/s 68 of the Act which refers to unexplained cash credit whereas in the case of the assessee it was investment in property. Secondly, the ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee took loan from ICICI Bank for investing in the said property and since the source was explained no addition was call....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....per book provides for the repayment schedule and shows the property value at Rs.2,95,40,000/-. Various other documents including loan confirmation certificate and deed of conveyance are sufficient enough to prove that the source of investment in property is loan taken from ICICI Bank and, therefore, on merits also the addition made by the assessing officer u/s 68 of the Act at Rs. 2,95,40,000/- and u/s 69C of the Act at Rs.16,08,767/- do not stand. We, therefore, fail to find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and thus Ground Nos. 1, 2 & 3 of the revenue are dismissed. 7. As far as Ground No. 4 is concerned it is regarding the violation of Rule 46A of the Rules. It is not discernible from the records nor referred to by the ld. ....