AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 362
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... evidence adduced. Therefore, the additions made in total income need to be deleted. 3. That, ld. A.O. added of Rs. 3,38,486/- u/s 56(2)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by using mathematic formula in total income as against the documentary evidence adduced and ld. CIT(A) also affirmed the same additions. Both, the ld. A.O. and CIT(A) failed to appreciate the certified copy issued by Sub Reg. Office and the assessment orders accepting the document value in other joint owners' case. Thus, additions made without considering documents and evidences adduced need to be deleted. 4. On the basis of facts of the case and in law, the addition made u/s 69 by the A.O. and confirmed by the CIT(A) for unexplained investment is bad in law and without any materials or evidences on records. The A.O. grossly failed to allow opportunity to the appellant for explaining investments made in property and CIT(A) also erred by not considering documents and evidences adduced during appellant hearing and confirmed the additions of Rs. 12,33,150/-. Thus, addition of Rs. 12,33,150/- needs to be deleted. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the reasons supplied f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y dated 15/07/2018 and furnished copy of return filed on 13/07/2018 declaring same income as declared in the original return of income i.e. at Rs. 66,500/-. Copy of reasons recorded was provided to the assessee. The Assessing Officer noted that no details/documents were provided by assessee as required under various notices under Section 142 of the Act. A final show cause notice was issued to the assessee vide notice dated 26/09/2018, the assessee was asked to furnish his explanation on or before 27/09/2018. The Assessing Officer further noted that no compliance of such notice was made. The Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment on the basis of material available on record. 3. The Assessing Officer recorded that the assessee with other co-owners purchased a land in RS No.47, Block No. 86, Bamroli, vide registered sale deed dated 18/09/2013 for a consideration of Rs. 3.05 crores, wherein the share of assessee is 4.038% thus, the share of investment of assessee is Rs. 12,33,150/-. As per stamp duty valuation, the market value of property is Rs. 3.86 crores. Accordingly, the share of assessee in the investment as per market value of immovable property is Rs. 15,61,6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3,38,486/-, the Assessing Officer noted that Jantri value of property was Rs. 3.86 crores against the value shown in the sale deed at Rs. 3.05 crores. No such details were provided, as to how the assessing officer arrived at valuation of property at Rs. 3.86 crores. The property was purchased at market value and stamp duty was paid as per appropriate Jantri rate. The assessee alongwith other co-owners purchased property as R.S. No. 47, Block No. 86 at Rs. 3.05 crores, the assessee was having share of 4.03%, and paid his share of Rs. 12,33,251/-. No additional stamp duty was demanded by Sub-Registrar Office and the document was accepted as it is. 5. The assessee further submitted that they made enquiry and sought clarification from Sub-registrar office concerned about the correct value of said property. Sub-registrar office issued calculation sheet for valuation of property i.e. agricultural land in Survey No. 47, Block No. 86 final plot No. 82A-82B, Bamroli, Surat dated 07/12/2016. In certified calculation sheet, the correct Jantri value worked out by Sub-Registrar office is at Rs. 2.98 crores. The document was registered by showing consideration at Rs. 3.05 crores. Certified co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der Section 148 of the Act. The assessee also relied on certain case laws. 7. The ld. CIT(A) in para 5 of his order, recorded that the submission of assessee was forwarded to Assessing Officer for his remand report. As no such submission was made by assessee before the Assessing Officer, by treating the same as additional evidence. The Assessing Officer submitted his report dated 11/10/2021 on NFAC portal. The Assessing Officer in his report, objected about admitting the submission of assessee on the ground that the assessee does not fulfil the condition prescribed under Rule 46A, therefore, such additional evidences may not be admitted. However, on merit of the addition, the Assessing Officer reported that the "assessee alongwith other 14 co-owners, sold immovable property situated at R.S. No. 47, Block No. 86, final plot No. 82A-82B, Bamroli, Surat". The Assessing Officer further reported that on a consideration of Rs. 3.05 crores, the assessee and his co-owners paid stamp duty of Rs. 18,95,000/- and reiterated the contents of assessment order. 8. On the remand report, the assessee filed his rejoinder dated 20/12/2021. The contents of rejoinder are recorded in para 5.1 of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to notice under Section 148 was not filed in time prescribed in the notice under Section 148 of the Act. The case was reopened after recording reasons after proper approval of competent authority. There was reason to believe that the income of assessee has escaped assessment, as there was failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts of its income necessary for investment and upheld the validity of reopening. Further aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. 12. I have heard the submissions of the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee and the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities carefully. The grounds No. 1 and 2 of the assessee are general in nature and needs no specific adjudication, therefore, dismissed as such. 13. Ground No. 3 of the appeal relates to addition of Rs. 3,38,486/- under Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer made this addition by taking a view that the Jantri value of property was at Rs. 3.86 crores....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....14. Ground No. 4 relates to addition of unexplained investment of Rs. 12,33,150/-, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that the investment made in the land is duly reflected in the balance sheet and payment was made from ICICI bank account which was duly shown in the return of income. Copy of P&L account, balance sheet, capital account, land purchase account and bank statements were produced before the ld. CIT(A) in his submission. Source of land purchased were also explained by supporting evidence. The assessee has availed unsecured loan from his uncle Ashish R Patel and mother Smt. Darshna Sanjay Patel. Their confirmation, copy of their income tax return were furnished before the ld. CIT(A) and were available before the Assessing Officer at the time of remand report, they have not doubted such loan transactions. The Assessing Officer has not mentioned as to why investment of Rs. 12,33,150/- required to be verified or he possessed any material to form an opinion about the escapement of income. No documents or evidences in the power and possession of Assessing Officer was provided to the assessee. The invocation of application of provisions of Section 56(2)(vii) is void ab initio as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat he has information that assessee and his co-owners have purchased land in RS No.47, Block No. 86, Bamroli, vide registered sale deed dated 18/09/2013 for a consideration of Rs. 3.05 crores, wherein the share of assessee is 4.038% thus, the share of investment of assessee is Rs. 12,33,150/-. As per stamp duty valuation, the market value of property is Rs. 3.86 crores. On the basis of figure of Rs. 3.86 Crore, the assessing officer worked out the share of assessee in the investment at Rs. 15,61,636/-, and a difference of Rs. 3,28,846/- as per the value determined by the stamp duty authority vis-a-vis the consideration declared in the sale deed. The assessing officer made addition of such difference under section 56(2)(vii) by taking view that despite show cause no response or reply was furnished by the assessee. The Assessing Officer worked out the share of assessee at Rs. 12,33,150/- from total investment by all co-owners and treated it as unexplained investment and added to the income of assessee. No basis of such working or on arriving such figure is recorded in the assessment order nor copy of such working was provided to the assessee. The ld CIT(A) also confirmed the action ....