TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 1027
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e returned income or file his objection, if any, to such variation before the Dispute Resolution Panel and the Assessing Officer within 30 days of receipt of draft assessment order. In response to draft assessment order, the assessee filed letter dated 31.03.2022 submitting certain bank account statements and stated that investments in mutual fund may kindly be treated to have come from declared and definite source of income. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has neither filed any objection before ld. DRP nor submitted its acceptance to variation made to the returned income before him. Accordingly, he proceeded to dispose off the final assessment order under section 144C of the Act as with the following observations. 4. He observed that the transactions for FY 2014-15 were flagged in Non-filers Monitoring System. He observed that entries in Form 26AS and ITS data for the FY 2014-15 indicated that assessee had received following amounts:- (i) Rs. 22,73,333/- from Ravissance Developers Private Ltd.; and (ii) Rs. 19,67,497/- as interest income. 5. Further assessee had paid an amount of Rs. 2,76,30,628/- for the purchase of units of mutual funds. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d same was duly forwarded to the Assessing Officer and Assessing Officer was asked to comment on such documents. Ld. CIT(A) observed that in respect of verifying said additional evidences, Assessing Officer has completely denied all such additional evidences being submitted by the assessee. Even otherwise the claim of the Assessing Officer is accepted for the sake of argument and if any misplacement of additional evidences, Assessing Officer could have asked for another copy of additional evidences from his office or sought resubmission from the assessee. On the contrary, Assessing Officer just took a convenient path and submitted a formal remand report without going into the information/ documents submitted by the assessee. Accordingly, he treated the remand report submitted by the Assessing Officer as deficient and proceeded to adjudicate the grounds on merits. Accordingly, he decided the issue based on information available on record as under :- "5.3 Ground no. 1: Unexplained Investment u/s 69 (in Mutual Funds): Rs. 2,76,30,628/- 5.3.1 On perusal of the bank statement(s) for the FY 2014-15, of the bank account(s) of the appellant maintained with HSBC bank (A/c ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....usal of ITR, Form 26AS and computation of Income for the FY 2014-15, is noted that the appellant has shown annual rental income of Rs. 22,73,333/- from property situated in DLF, Gurgaon iro. property at G-117, Himalaya House, New Delhi Further, the appellant had claimed House tax of Rs. 96,298/-, against the same. However, on perusal of the copies of House Tax Receipts submitted by the appellant n this regard, it is noted that the said house tax is related a property at G-117, Himalaya House, New Delhi, in respect of which no rental income is offered by the appellant during the year under consideration, Therefore, it is inferred that the clarification submitted by the appellant along with documentary evidences are not reasonable to substantiate the claim of the appellant with regard to the expenses i.e. House Tax paid. Therefore, the same are disallowed as a valid expense against the said property at Gurgaon. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 1,25,187/- made in respect of "Income from House Property" is hereby confirmed and the respective ground of appeal raised by the appellant is hereby dismissed. Ground no. 3: Income from Capital Gain: Rs. 6,66,430/- On perusal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dences were submitted by the assessee under rule 46A of the IT Rules and he also brought to our notice remand report submitted by the Assessing Officer which is reproduced at page 10 of the appellate order and brought to our notice observation of the Assessing Officer that evidences submitted by the assessee are not sufficient. Further he brought to our notice page 25 of the appellate order wherein the ld. CIT (A) has accepted that the additional evidences submitted by the assessee are sufficient and already placed on record. He objected to the admission of the additional evidence and submissions made by the assessee by the ld. CIT (A). With regard to merits of the case, he relied on the orders of Assessing Officer. 10. On the other hand, ld. AR for the assessee relied on the findings of ld. CIT(A) at para 5.2 of the order. Further he submitted that assessee is a non-resident and the return of income filed by the assessee in AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 were accepted by the Revenue. He submitted that the investments made in earlier assessment year were sold by the assessee during the current assessment year. Therefore, there is no new investment or funds brought in by the assessee du....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., ld. CIT(A) deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer on investment in mutual fund during the current assessment year. After considering the submissions of both the sides, we observed that the findings given by ld. CIT (A) are based on the information very much available on record and it is also fact on record that assessee is an NRI and all the source of income are from his salary income earned by the assessee outside India. Therefore, we do not see any reason to disturb the findings of the ld. CIT (A) considering the fact that all the informations are traced from the bank statements submitted by the assessee. Therefore, we do not see any reason to disturb the findings of the ld. CIT (A). Accordingly, ground no.(iii) raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 12. Coming to ground no.(ii), we observed that assessee has declared long term capital gain of Rs. 6,66,430/- on sale of equity oriented mutual funds. In support of which, assessee has paid relevant STT and details of the same are extracted at page 27 of the first appellate order. Since the transaction falls under section 10(38) of the Act, accordingly ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition. The abovesaid informations are fi....