TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 417
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in law and hence the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) should have instead of confirming the assessment order, quashed the reopening of assessment. 3. In any case, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the assessment order passed by the learned Assessing Officer. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of income tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi should have quashed the order passed by Assessing Officer or at least should have deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 4.1 In any case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC. Delhi has erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing officer amounting to Rs. 14,33.573/- on account of purchase of jewellery as undisclosed investments u/s 69 of the IT Act. The addition 'as made/confirmed is without any basis and is liable to be deleted. 4.2 On the facts of the appellant's case, the appellant having not purchased any jewellery or made any investment in purchase of jewellery, the addition being contrary to the facts of the appellant's case is to be deleted. 4.3 In any case withou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., it is requested that the impugned orders passed be quashed or atleast the additions as made/confirmed be deleted, levy of taxes at special rates u/s 115BBE be deleted and the interest levied be also deleted." 2. The brief facts of the case are that as per Risk Management Strategy formulated by the CBDT through ITBA software under the head 'NMS cases', it was noticed that the assessee had carried out following transactions during the impugned AY, but assessee has not filed return of income:- S. No. Information Code Description FY 2014-15 (in Rs.) 1. CiB-183 Time deposit of Rs. 1,00,000 and more 6,86,32,952 2. TCS- 206CK TCS Statement - Cash sale of bullion and jewellery (Section 206C) 14,33,573 3. TDS-194A TDS Statement - Interest other than interest on securities (Section 194A) 5,29,974 4. TDS- 194IA(P) TDS Statement - Payment of consideration for purchase of immovable property (Section 194IA) 1,55,64,500 3. Notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act dated 23.03.2022 was issued to the assessee to file reply on 30.03.2022, but the assessee did not reply. Another notice u/s 148A(d) and u/s. 148 on 31.03.2022 was issued with the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the joint owner from his accounted sources. Please attached a letter received from the Co-purchaser explaining the transaction (Annexure-2). 4. The assessee also filed confirmation from Mr. Srinivasan Mahesh on payment of Rs. 1,55,64500/- in which it has been stated that loan is interest free and it is still outstanding. After considering the entire submissions of the assessee, the AO noted in respect of cash jewellery purchase of Rs. 14.34 lakhs there is contradictory statement of assessee at one place that she was not aware of the transaction and PAN of assessee has been misused by somebody else without her knowledge, while later she submitted that jewellery of Rs. 14.34 lakhs was purchased by her relative Shri Puttarangaiah for a function as he did not have PAN during purchase and filed a confirmation letter on a simple paper from Shri P. Venkatachalaiah, S/o. Shri Puttarangaiah. The AO did not accept this argument and noted that there is no bank details, bills of jewellery and confirmation is only on simple plain paper. Accordingly it was treated as undisclosed investment u/s. 69 of the Act. 5. In respect of time deposit, the AO accepted submissions of the assessee. Furth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oint name of assessee and Srinivasan Mahesh with 50% share and entire amount has been paid by Srinivasan Mahesh residing outside India. The assessee is daughter of Mr. Ramaiah who was closest friend of Srinivasan Mahesh for many years and the amount of assessee's share is interest free loan which is outstanding as on date. In this regard, confirmation from Srinivasan Mahesh is filed. She submitted that both the parties agreed that loan is outstanding and source is explained and there is no doubt regarding source of payment made by Srinivasan Mahesh. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has accepted that it does not come u/s. 69 since source was disclosed and assessee filed bank statement of Srinivasan Mahesh from which the purchase price of immovable property was paid. The CIT(A) has considered the share of assessee u/s. 56(2) which is also wrong and it cannot be treated as a gift as prescribed u/s. 56(2) because it is a loan which is still outstanding. Therefore addition u/s. 69 cannot be sustained. 9. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the order of lower authorities and submitted that assessee took different stand before the AO. As per Form 26AS and invoice copy and PAN, name of assessee....