TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 1027
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 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. Despite having the above receipts and investments, assessee had n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cer 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 No. 030866602006) and Citi bank NRI A/c (Ac No. 3100931510), following findings hav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 of ITR, computation of Income and DEMAT statement(s) for the FY 2014-15, it is noted that the appellant has shown Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 6,66,430/- on sale of equity oriented mutual funds, in respe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmitted 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 during the current assessment year and findings of the Assessing Officer are not justified. He prayed that the findings of ld. CIT(A) be sustained. He submitted that facts in other appeal are exactly similar. 11. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed....