TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 400
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....round of appeal, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed ex parte by the Tribunal vide order dated 6.9.2018. Thereafter, assessee filed Misc. Application being MA No.25/RJT/2019 seeking recall of the exparte order. Considering the pleadings in the MA and submissions of the ld.counsel for the assessee, the impugned ex parte order was recalled vide order dated 29.7.2022, and restored the appeal to its original number and listed for hearing afresh on merit. Accordingly, this matter has come up before us, and we proceed to adjudicate the same hereinafter as follows. 3. The ld.counsel for the assessee submitted before us that there are only two issues involved in the present appeal relating addition made on account of two investments made by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m proceedings and had alternatively explained the same in penalty proceedings which explanation was accepted by the Revenue authorities also, held that there was no case at all for confirming the addition in quantum proceedings. He drew our attention to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Basir Ahmed Sisodia Vs. ITO, (2020) 116 taxamnn.com 375 (SC), copy of which was placed before us. Further, our attention was drawn to the explanation furnished by the assessee during the appellate proceedings in penalty levied in the case of the assessee at PB page no.1 to 5, pointing out therefrom that the assessee had explained the source of investment in FDR as out of maturity amount of earlier FDRs. and source of investment in flat being ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mand proceedings had found the assessee to have duly explained source of investment in FDRs and Flat. A copy of the order was placed in PB page no.25 to 32. Our attention was drawn to para-8 containing the decision of the ld.CIT(A) regarding the above finding as under: 6. The ld.DR, on the other hand, vehemently objected to the arguments of the ld.counsel for the assessee and heavily relied on the order of the ITAT in the first round, pointing out to the observation made in the said order to the effect that if the loan given by the employer to the assessee for purchase of flat remained unpaid it would take nature of salary income in the hands of the assessee. He contended that this observation of the ITAT in the first round needed consider....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oceedings. The reason for making addition was source of investment remained unexplained. The assessee having explained the source in penalty proceedings, and the AO having accepted the same investments, there was no room to hold that the investment remained unexplained, therefore, there is no reason at all to confirm the two additions made on account of aforesaid two investments. We draw support from the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Basir Ahmed Sisodia (supra) wherein in identical set of facts, Hon'ble Apex Court held that factual basis on which the AO had formed his opinion in assessment order, having been dispelled by affidavits and statements of the concerned parties in penalty proceedings, there was no occasion for conf....