TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 626
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting the contention of the appellant that the impugned assessment order is bad in law ab initio and non est as the same does not bear the mandatory DIN thereon nor it has been regularized as per the circular no. 19 dated 14/08/2019 issued by the CBDT, application of which is mandatory w.e.f. 15/10/2019. Thus, the same must be quashed as non est and void ab initio. 2. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in ignoring that the AO passed the impugned assessment order without considering the submissions of the assessee and the information filed on her record during the assessment proceedings as well as during the post search proceedings before the investigation unit. In fact, the AO has completely ignored the said information by not men....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de on surmise and conjectures must be deleted. 7. The learned C1T(A) erred in law and on facts in not granting exemption u/s 54F of the Act for investment of the entire sale consideration of the bullion sold during the relevant period and invested in acquisition of the said residential flat as the appellant did not have any other residential property till the date of purchase of said flat. Thus, the said exemption claimed u/s 54F of the Act must be allowed. 8. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not giving any finding on applicability of the provisions of the section 115BBE of the Act for this assessment year though the said section was legislated w.e.f. the next subsequent AY 2013-14 and was not in the statute....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated 21.05.2011 for purchase of property at Rohini, Delhi was found and seized. As per the said part payment receipt, the said flat was purchased by the assessee for a total consideration of Rs. 98 lakhs. 6. However, on perusal of the sale deed, it was found that the said property was purchased for a total consideration of Rs. 30,00,000/- only. When the said difference was confronted to the assessee, the assessee in her statement recorded on oath u/s 132(4) of the Act submitted that she is not aware of the said deal and that all the matters pertaining to the said deal were handled by her husband. 7. The assessee was again provided an opportunity to explain the difference and she explained that the said sum of Rs. 68 lakhs was sourced....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orders of the authorities below. The undisputed fact is that the impugned property was purchased in the name of the assessee and as per the sale deed, consideration was Rs. 30 lakhs. It is also not in dispute that a document was found and seized from the premises of the husband of the assessee which showed that transaction was for Rs. 98 lakhs and, therefore, it becomes incumbent upon the assessee to explain the source of investment of Rs. 68 lakhs. 14. There is no dispute that in her statement recorded on oath u/s 132(4) of the Act which is binding on her, she had categorically stated that she is not aware of the transaction and her husband has paid the money. 15 Interestingly, the statement of the husband of the assessee was also re....