TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1391
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hereinafter referred to as the 'Act), for the A.Y. 2016-17, wherein Ld CIT(A) has allowed assessee's appeal and deleted the addition of Rs. 2,06,86,000/- made u/s. 69B of the Act, vide assessment order dated 31.03.2022. 2. Brief facts relating to the appeal state that the assessee is a trust and filed return of income for the A.Y. 2016-17 on 09.11.2016, declaring total income of Rs. 2,10,000/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter the case was reopened after obtaining approval of the sanctioning authority u/s. 151 of the Act on account of assessing officer's recorded reasons which are as under: "1. The assessee has filed ITR for the year under consideration declaring total income of Rs. 2,10,000/-. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was made. Accordingly, in this case, the only requirement to initiate proceeding u/s. 147 is reason to believe which has been recorded above. 6. It is pertinent to mention here that in this case the assessee has filed return of income for the year under consideration but no assessment as stipulated u/s. 2(40) of the Act was made and the return of income was only processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. In view of the above, provisions of clause (b) of explanation 2 to section 147 are applicable to facts of this case and the assessment year under consideration is deemed to be a case where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 7. This case is within four years from the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee's response and thus added Rs. 2,06,86,000 (Rs. 1,97,00,000 + Rs. 9,86,000) u/s. 69B of the Act and taxed at special rate of 30% u/s. 115BBE of the Act. 4. Assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who allowed assessee's appeal, deleting the said additions. Ld. CIT(A) found that the reasons recorded by the assessing officer, merely stated that the investment was disproportionate to declared income without any independent verification and treated such reasons as "reason to suspect" rather than "reason to believe". Ld. CIT(A) also observed that the non-supply of approval u/s. 151 and DIT(I&CI) report, despite assessee's request, violated the principles of natural justice. Ld. CIT(A), taking strength from the decision of Supreme ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to him during the proceedings. Therefore, the cases quoted above are not relevant in this case and the Assessing Officer gave ample opportunity to protect the principle of natural justice. iii. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has deleted the addition of Rs. 2,06,86,000/- made u/s. 69B without appreciating the facts that the submission made and the bank statement provided form 03.08.2013 to 17.02.2017 in support of the investments were not sufficient to explain the source of fund invested. Further, beneficiaries of the trust were also not provided in the return of income filed and therefore the source of investment remained unverified and not substantiated. iv. Ld. CIT (A), NFAC in Para 7.3 of the order has stated that section 115B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....perty was purchased for a base price of Rs. 1,97,16,060/-, including stamp duty and incidental charges. The property was registered in F.Y. 2015-16. The payments were made over three different financial years through banking channels only. The part consideration of Rs. 22,28,739/- only was made in the A.Y. 2016-17. The remaining payments of Rs. 1.77 crore was made in A.Y. 2011-12 and Rs. 43.07 lakhs was made in A.Y. 2014-15. Ld. AR has further submitted that AO has wrongly taxed the entire consideration in the A.Y. 2016-17 u/s. 69B of the Act, which cannot be made applicable to assessee's recorded investments. Ld. AR supported the impugned order and prayed to dismiss revenue's appeal. 10. We have gone through the impugned order dated 08.....