TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 793
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st to share copies of all the statement recorded by the Investigation wing regarding the sale of properties. These copies were not given inspite of using them against the assessee. (4) The Ld CIT (A) erred in law and facts of the case in sustaining the order, when the hon'ble Tribunal for Benami transactions has released the property and given relief to alleged benamidar and alleged beneficial owner. Copy of order was filed on record. (5) The Ld CIT (A) erred in law and facts of the case in sustaining the addition of Rs 88,52,740/- u/s. 69. (6) The appellant reserves the right to add, amend or alter any grounds of appeal." 2. It is observed that the appeal is delayed by 7 days. A condonation application has been filed by the assessee in which it has been submitted that since the wife of the assessee was suffering from various medical problems for which she had been admitted to a Hospital at Jabalpur, the assessee was unable to meet his counsel for filing of the appeal on time. A copy of the discharge summary in respect of the assessee's wife dated 10.11.2023 showing that the assessee's wife had admitted to Baharani Health Care with dengue fever sin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e property considered as benami in the reference by the DCIT (BPU). From this investigation made by the DCIT (BPU), Bhopal and the AO, the AO recorded his satisfaction that Sh. Rajendra Sahu was the actual person who had invested in the property under consideration and therefore, proceedings under section 147 were initiated in the hands of the assessee. The AO concluded that the transactions in the bank account was carried out by the assessee and established the fact that there was a link between Sh. Amarnath Pyasi and Sh. Rajendra Sahu in the matter of financial transactions for the purchase of property and the property that had been purchased had actually been purchased by the assessee through his employee Sh. Amarnath Pyasi. Thereafter, the AO confronted the assessee in this regard. However, the assessee denied the said investment. The AO did not give any credence to the denial furnished by the assessee and held that the payment of Rs. 88,52,740/- in the F.Y. 2012-13, relevant to the A.Y. 2013-14 was an unexplained investment made by the assessee under section 69 of the Act since the assessee had been found to be the owner of the investment, since the investment had not been rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n and had simply made the addition in the hands of two persons i.e. Sh. Amarnath Pyasi and Sh. Rajendra Sahu. Therefore, there was violation of principles of natural justice in this case. The assessee placed reliance on various case laws as under:- i. SRS Mining vs. Union of India and Ors 328 CTR (Mad) 510 ii. Harjinder Singh vs. Income Tax Officer 124 TTJ (ASR) 252. iii. Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 281 CTR (SC) 241 The assessee also submitted that the AO had erred in law in issuing the notice under section 148 without proper application of mind. The assessee invited attention to the appeal filed by Sh. Amarnath Pyasi for the A.Y. 2012-13 and A.Y. 2013-14 which had been passed by the same AO who had recorded the reasons for issue of notice under section 148 in the case of the assessee. It was submitted that the same AO had assessed the entire income from investment in the purchase of the property of Rs. 1,18,95,000/- in the hands of Sh. Amarnath Pyasi in the assessment years under question and that the addition had not been done on protective basis. Therefore, there could no occasion for the said AO to record reasons th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....one on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing, Jabalpur of huge investments in immovable properties which were not commensurate with the return of income. The reopening had been done after forming a belief that the investment had been made out of the income of the assessee from unexplained sources and the same had not been offered to tax. Since the assessee had not brought any cogent material on record to show that the various notices were not issued within the stipulated time and not served as per law therefore, he held that there was no infirmity on this account and he accordingly upheld the re-initiation of the assessment proceedings. Coming to the merits of the case, the ld. CIT(A) held that the onus was upon the assessee, prove the genuineness of the money credited in his bank account and that the addition under section 69 could be made in any case where any investment was found for any previous year and the assessee either offers no explanation about the nature and source as regards the same, or the explanation offered is not found to be satisfactory. He held that it was not in dispute that Sh. Amarnath Pyasi was a salaried employee of the assessee havi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ause it was alleged that the assessee was the controller of the bank account standing at IDBI in the name of Sh. Amarnath Pyasi. It was submitted that the same was not sufficient to charge the assessee as the benami owner of the property. Attention was invited to the affidavit of Sh. Amarnath Pyasi, which had been submitted by the assessee before the Assessing Officer and which had been ignored by the Assessing Officer. It was submitted that in the said affidavit, the owner Sh. Amarnath Pyasi had accepted the fact of investment of money through late Sh. Mukesh Agarwal. Furthermore, Sh. Amarnath Pyasi had also made a submission before the adjudicating authority under the prohibition of PBPT Act which have been submitted to the Assessing Officer which had not been considered. The ld. AR submitted a paper book in which the registered sale deed was contained and the statements of Smt. Parul Agarwal, Sh. Sanjeev Varvandikar (the seller), Sh. Amarnath Pyasi's various statement and the affidavit sworn by Sh. Amarnath Pyasi were included. Also included was the assessment order passed in the case of Sh. Amarnath Pyasi for the said assessment year 2012-13 and the copy of the reasons recorded....