TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1803
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the explanations and evidences submitted by the Appellant when the same having accepted by the AO. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) without considering the detailed submissions along with the supporting evidences, upheld the order of the Assessing Officer which cannot be held as a valid assessment and such an order of the Ld. CIT(A) is against the facts of the case. 6. Although the Assessing Officer has not made any adverse comments in the entire remand report, the Ld. CIT(A) has only allowed to reduce the addition by Rs. 10,00,000/- without any proper basis and hence the order cannot be held as valid and the Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A of the IT Act. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the Appellant has explained the issue with documentary evidences. Without considering the same, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the rest of the addition of Rs. 1,21,11,000/- (Rs 1,31,11,000/- - Rs. 10,00,000) which is not tenable and is liable to be deleted. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that the addition upheld u/s 69A of the IT Act for Rs. 1,21,11,000/- is without any supporting material on re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Remand Report from the AO on the additional documents submitted by the assessee. The AO provided the Remand Report, which was captured by the LD.CIT(A) in Pages 24 to 26 of the paper book. Thereafter, assessee filed a rejoinder to the remand report on 07.11.2024 submitting that the assessee has explained the source of cash found during the course of search and therefore, no addition is required to be made. However, the LD.CIT(A) rejected the submissions of assessee as well as remand report and partly granted relief to the assessee. The findings of the LD.CIT(A) given in Paras 7.3.3 to 7.3.5, which is to the following effect : "7.3.3. I had carefully perused the assessment order, grounds of appeal additional evidence and the remand report furnished by the AO. The additional evidences furnished are analysed below: (i) Rs. 55,00,000/-: The development agreement was executed on 31.05.2016 between the appellant being the first party/landlord and Sri K. Mahendar Reddy, Sri J. Srinivas Reddy, Sri. J. Gangadhar Yadav and Sri. Trishul Reddy being second party/Developers. On page no. 7 of the development agreement in para no. 9, it is mentioned as follows: "9 The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and surmises. 7.3.4. Rs. 45,00,000/-:- The appellant submitted that the Rs. 45,00,000/- was received from Developers which is as given below: S. No. Particulars Date Amount 1 At the time of Development agreement May 2016 55,00,000 2 After the agreement - amount received from 5,00,000 1. K. Mahender Reddy Dec, 2016 5,00,000 2. J. Srinivas Reddy Dec, 2016 10,00,000 3. T. Gangadar Reddy. Dec, 2016 7,50,000 4. K. Mahender Reddy Mar, 2018 7,50,000 5. J. Srinivas Reddy Mar, 2018 7,50,000 6. T. Gangadar Reddy Mar, 2018 10,00,000 TOTAL 1,00,00,000 In support of the contention, appellant submitted confirmation letters from the developers. The contention of the appellant is not acceptable for the following reasons: (i) There are four persons who are second party/developers as per the development agreement. As per para 9 of the development agreement all the four persons are entitled for a share in the developed area/plots. However, from the above table it is seen only three persons are....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ized was sourced from the agricultural income nothing prevented him to put the same before the AO and Ld. CIT(A) in earlier proceedings. But, however, it cannot be denied that the appellant might have received some agricultural income from the agricultural lands owned by him. In view of this, an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- can be said to be received from the agricultural income and accordingly AO is directed to reduce Rs. 10,00,000/- from the addition made of Rs. 1,31,11,000/-. In view of this, grounds of appeal no. 3 and 5 are partly allowed. 7.4. The ground no. 4 is vague and no written submission in support of this ground have been made in the appellate proceedings. The ground of appeal no. 4 is infructuous. 7.5. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed." 6. The ld.AR further submitted that once the AO has satisfied with respect to the amount mentioned in the registered Joint Development Agreement (JDA), which is available from page 100 onwards, more particularly at page 114, whereby the assessee has received Rs. 55 lakhs in cash from K. Mahender Reddy, J. Srinivas Reddy, and T. Gangadhar Yadav, as recorded in the JDA. Further, the assessee had filed the de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on as income from other sources- unexplained investment in Harey estate of Rs. 9,45,000/- (Point 15) Assessee's submissions may be accepted." 9. Thus, from perusal of the report submitted by the Assessing Officer himself, it is evident that, if the Remand Report is accepted with regard to long term capital gains, then addition as income from other sources and income from other sources is also accepted, therefore, the question of law framed in this regard namely, substantial questions of law No.3, 4, 5 and 8 do not arise for consideration in this appeal, as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has passed the order on the aforesaid Remand Report and the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has been accepted by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal." 7. Similarly, the Hon'ble Madras High Court on identical facts, in the case of Smt. B. Jayalakshmi and ACIT reported in (2018) 96 taxmann.com 486, has held as under : "9. Firstly, we have to take note of the fact that the issue canvassed before us, is a jurisdictional issue, which could be raised at any point of time. Secondly, the Tribunal was required to consider as to whether it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 154 of the Act. Notwithstanding the admission before the Income Tax Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The appeal was dismissed upholding the order of the Income Tax Officer. The assessee preferred further appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal also dismissed the appeal. It is thereafter, at the instance of the assessee, the above question was referred by the Tribunal for consideration of the Hon'ble Division Bench. The Division Bench opined that the appeals to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and to the Tribunal by the assessee were incompetent, since the assessee appeared before the Income Tax Officer and stated that the assessee had no objection to the proposed revision and once the assessee has stated that it had no objection to the proposed revision and the Income Tax Officer had also revised them the original assessment as proposed by him, the assessee could not be said to be aggrieved by the order of the Income Tax Officer. It was further pointed out. that only if the assessee was aggrieved by the order of the Income Tax Officer, he had the right to file an appeal before the Appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the Tribunal, we are inclined to review the judgment and remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. 24. In the result, the Review Petitions are allowed and the judgment dated 30.09.2013, in Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.819 to 821 of 2010 is reviewed and recalled and the appeals stands disposed of, by remanding the matter to the Tribunal to decide the question of its jurisdiction to entertain the appeals filed by the Revenue against the orders of the CIT(A). In the event, the Tribunal decides the question in favour of the Revenue, it shall reconsider the other issues after opportunity to the Revenue and assessee. 25. One more submission made by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner is with regard to the monetary limits for filing appeals by the department before the Tribunal. Relying upon circular No.21 of 2015, dated 10.12.2015, issued by the CBDT, it is submitted that for the revenue to maintain an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, the monetary limit has been fixed as Rs. 10,00,000/- and on this ground also, the appeal is not maintainable. It is open to the assessee to canvass such a point before the Tribunal during the hearing." 8. Per ....