TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1160
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) is against law and facts. 2. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO is issuing notice u/s 148, although the notice issued was invalid, illegal and without jurisdiction. 3 That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in not giving a copy of reasons recorded u/s 148 to the appellant inspite of specific request by the appellant to the CIT (Appeals) in this regard. 4. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in not considering the reply and arguments taken by the appellant and erred in passing a non-speaking order. 5. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- made by the Ld. AO by treating the cost of agricultural land purcha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submitted by the Ld. AO during assessment proceedings and also erred in not giving an opportunity to file his rejoinder. 12. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in not giving a personal hearing to the appellant through Video Conferencing inspite of specific request in this regard and thus violated the principles of natural justice. 13. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, armend, modify or withdraw any of the ground of appeal at the time of hearing." 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the Assessee purchased an agriculture land measuring 47Kanal 12 Marla in village Anwal, District Rohtak vide sale deed dated 08/04/2010, registered as Document No. 4 in the Office of the Sub-Registrar Khalanaur District Rohtak for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....el for the Assessee submitted that Ground No. 1 to 4 and 10 to 13 are not pressed, accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the same as not pressed. Recording the submission of the ld. Assessee's Representative, Ground No. 1 to 4 and 10 to 13 are dismissed as not pressed. 6. Ground No. 5 to 7 are regarding confirmation of addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- made by the A.O. by treating the cost of agriculture land purchased by the Assessee at Rs. 1,03,28,400/-. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the total cost incurred by the Assessee for purchase of agriculture land is only Rs. 40,80,000/- and the Ld. A.O. has committed error in invoking provision of Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act as the said provision is not applicable for the ye....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er consideration, wrong mentioning of the Section cannot be a ground for deletion of the addition. The Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the Tribunal has the power to rectify the error/mistake committed in mentioning the wrong Section by the Revenue Authorities. Further submitted that, in so far as source of income is concerned, the Assessee had failed to prove the same by producing the cogent documents, therefore, sought for dismissal of the Ground No. 5 to 7. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Admittedly the A.O. has invoked the provision of Section 56(1)(vii) of the Act on the ground that an immovable property has been purchased by the Assessee below the Circle rate and conside....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of law. Therefore, the Judgment relied by the Ld. Departmental Representative in the case of Namev Arora Vs. CIT (supra) is not applicable to the case in hand. 11. Now, the question remains regarding proving the source of investment of Rs. 40,80,000/- for purchase of Agriculture Land. During the assessment proceedings, to prove the source of investment of Rs. 40,80,000/-, the Assessee contended that the Assessee had paid Rs. 13,50,000/- out of agriculture income earned during the past years and current year. To substantiate the same, the Assessee produced Jamabandi in respect of the lands owned by the Assessee and his family members measuring 18 acres. However, the authorities have erroneously disbelieved the claim of the Assessee wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1,00,00,000/- made by the A.O. which has been upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) it hereby deleted. Accordingly, we allow the Ground No. 5 to 7 of the Assessee. 13. The Ground No. 8 &9 is regarding confirming the addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- by the Ld. CIT(A) out of the total addition made by the A.O. 6,22,100/-. The Ld. A.O. while making the addition has only considered 4 acres of agriculture land previously owned of the Assessee, but completely ignored the six acres of land purchases in the beginning of the Financial Year i.e. on 09/04/2010. The Ld. CIT(A) while restricting the said addition considered the land holdings of the Assessee and deleted the partial addition. 14. It is the case of the Assessee that the Assessee was owing six acres of....