TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1720
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... without jurisdiction. Legal grounds - Reopening 3. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the assessment completed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 is bad in law. 4. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the order of reassessment passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 is barred by limitation. 5. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the reassessment has been completed without complying with the statutory requirements of law. Addition of Rs. 36,75,250/- as unexplained money u/s.69A 6. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 36,75,250/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Income Tax Act made by the Assessing Officer. 7. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 69A are not invocable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the explanation along with evidences furnished by the appellant regarding the source of cash deposit to the tune o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l house on the said site and claimed deduction u/s.54F of the Act. However, the AO was not convinced with the explanation furnished by the assessee and made addition of Rs. 36,75,250/- u/s.69A of the Act as unexplained money by holding as under:- "6. Furthermore, a show cause notice dated 09.04.2021 was issued to the assessee to furnish the reply on or before 16.04.2021, which was duly served upon the assessee on 09.04.2021, which is as under: "As per bank account statement of the year under consideration you have deposited Rs. 40, 00,250 in cash on 15.03.2012. In response of the notices u/s 142(1) 09.02.2021 & 18.03.2021, you have furnished replies online. 2. You have submitted that an immovable property was sold by you at the consideration of Rs. 34,90,060/- but from the sale deed dated 14.03.2012, it is clear that it was transferred at Rs. 3,25,000/- and stamp duty paid thereon. 3. Further you have submitted an agreement dated 06.12. 2011, by which you have received Rs. 7,00,000/- but the said amount and agreement is not mentioned in the sale deed dated 14.03.2012. The furnished agreement is not registered agreement, it is just notary attested....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant had failed to produce any clarification/documentary evidence in support of the balance cash deposit in the bank account. Therefore, the AO had no other option but to add back the balance amount unexplained money in the hands of the appellant. 10.4 In regard to the appellant's contention that the AO completed the without considering the details submitted at the assessment order is also not correct as the AO has recorded the same in the assessment order and the addition was made after considering the same (such as sale consideration of Rs. 3,25,000/- was allowed by the AO). The appellant has raised these contentions just because the AO has rejected the appellant's claim and added back the unexplained cash deposit in the bank account. 10.5 In regard to the appellant's contention that the AO has not considered the sale value as per the agreement., the detailed discussion has already been made in the above paras wherein it was concluded that the sale consideration as per the sale deed can only be relied as the same was registered with the SRO. 10.6 In view of the above discussion, the balance amount of cash deposit remained unexplained and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the whole amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- was deposited on 16.03.2012. Therefore, there is no nexus of the document shown which is not registered and the date of deposits made into the assessee's bank account. In light of the above arguments, the Ld.DR prayed for confirming the addition by upholding the order of the Ld.CIT(A). 7. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. It is an admitted fact that the assessee has sold an immovable property on 14.03.2012 to Shri A.G.Thakshanamoorthy at Cuddalore District during the impugned assessment year through a registered sale deed for sale consideration of Rs. 3,25,000/-. However, the assessee has brought to the notice of the assessing authority that a 'sale agreement' dated 06.12.2011 has been entered with a prospective buyer Shri Thakshanamoorthy for an agreed sale consideration of Rs. 34,90,060/- for the above said immovable property and has received advance in cash as detailed below:- Amount Date Rs. 7,00,000/- 06.12.2011 Rs. 3,00,000/- 28.12.2011 Rs. 4,00,000/- 09.01.2012 Further the assessee stated that he has received the balance co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 ii) DCIT vs. A P Sridhar (HUF) in ITA No.2735/CHNY/2016 iii) Shri Anthiah Pancras vs. ITO in ITA Nos.27 & 28/CHNY/2017 In the case of Ponnusamy Lakshmi (supra), the Tribunal has held that sale consideration as per the 'agreement to sale' cannot be rejected merely the registered value shown in the sale deed is less than the agreed sale consideration by holding as under:- "6. We have heard the rival contentions, and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is a house wife aged about 74 years and has never filed her return of income. In response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act, she has filed her return of income showing total income of Rs. 67,88,216/-. The assessee in the return of income has shown sale consideration of Rs. 74,50,000/- on sale of land on 21.02.2011. The assessee has explained that she has received Rs. 16,50,000/- on 29.10.2010 and the balance of Rs. 50,00,000/- on 17.02.2011 on the date of registration as sale consideration and deposited the cash receipt in the bank account. However, the A.O has not accepted the assessee's contention as the purchasers in the statement have stated that they have only paid Rs. 3,18,000/- for ....