TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 86
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the case the respected CIT(A) ought to have considered that the assessee had explained the sources, during the remand proceedings, for the entire investment of Rs. 71,00,000/- in the immovable property. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case the respected CIT(A) ought to have considered the reason for cash payment of Rs. 44,00,000/- to the vendor. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case the respected CIT(A) ought to have considered that the peculiar circumstances narrated during the remand proceedings for non-production of ledger account, receipts etc., from the builder. 4. The assessee may be permitted to add, alter, modify or drop any ground that may be urged at the time of hearing with the previou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessment u/s 148 r.w.s. 144C(3) of the Act whereby made this addition of the said amount of Rs.71 lakhs as unexplained investment u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BB of the I.T. Act. 4. The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the learned CIT (A) and furnished the bank account statement as well as the copy of sale deed, agreement of sale and copy of the undertaking given by the builder/vendor with postdated cheques. The learned CIT (A) has forwarded the said documentary evidence produced by the assessee to the Assessing Officer for verification and remand report. The Assessing Officer in the remand report given the details about the payment of purchase consideration to the extent of Rs.27 lakhs through banking channel and res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s further submitted that since the vendor was involved in various mischievous activities of the double sale of single property and therefore, was absconding. Hence, the assessee could not obtain the receipts against the cash payment as demanded by the Assessing Officer. He has further submitted that the said developer/vendor also indulged in making a duplicate sale of the said plot which was purchased by the assessee and even he has given an undertaking a copy of which is placed at page Nos. 1113 to 114 of the paper book along with post dated cheques at page 115 to 118 of the paper book which were not presented by the assessee. Thus, the learned AR has submitted that since the vendor was not available beyond the access of the assessee there....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the year 2008 to 2013 and therefore, the withdrawals prior to the agreement and that too 5 years prior to the agreement cannot be accepted as a source of payment of Rs. 44 lakhs. He has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 7. We have considered the rival contentions as well as the relevant material available on record. The assessee purchased the flat in question bearing No.206 of 2nd Tower, Block-A of the building known as Sindhu Amazon, 2nd Tower, Bellandur, Bangalore for a total consideration of Rs. 71 lakhs vide sale deed dated 07/07/2015. As per the Bank Account details the payment of Rs. 27 lakhs was made through 3 cheques of Rs. 9 lakh each dated 06/07/2015, 06/07/2015 and 07/07/2015. Thus, payment of Rs. 27 lakhs w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....agreement of sale dated 08/05/2013 or even prior to the supplementary agreement dated 02/04/2012 cannot be accepted. The learned CIT (A) has considered the remand report of the Assessing Officer and then given his finding, the relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under: Perusal of Sale Deed it is pertinent that the Developer had obtained the permission of construction of Tower-2 in Sindhu Amazon vide Plan sanction from Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike vide LP No.88/2010-11, sanctioned on 02.03.2012. In view of the above fact that the appellant contention of having made payment from 2005 onwards for the purchase of flat in Tower-2 the permission of which was accorder in 2012 only lacks merit and are contrary to the facts ....