2026 (6) TMI 199

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs. 16,88,18,743/-, u/s. 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as alleged unexplained investment, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. The solitary grievance of the Assessee pertains to the sustainment of an addition of Rs. 16,88,18,743/- under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'the Act'), on account of alleged unexplained investments. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 31.10.2018 declaring total income at Rs. 99,57,020/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... be the owner of these assets for the first time during the F.Y. 2017-18 hence they are deemed to be assessee's income for the F.Y. 2017-18 as per the provisions of Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961." 3.2 On further appeal, the assessee filed details submission before the Ld. CIT(A) explaining the position of work in progress shown from the project namely 'Timmy Residency'. The assessee explained that said project was already completed and out of 36 flats constructed 28 flats was already sold and 8 flats were remained unsold and value of the said unsold stock was value at Rs. 5,08,94,543/-. The assessee submitted that second project was at plot of land at CTS No. 54, Pawai, Saki Vihar Road, which was purchased long back and was....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....isclosures. The explanation that two different projects were involved does not alter the position because in either case, the assessee has failed to demonstrate the sources of investment. The claim that amounts were capitalized as work-in-progress is not supported by the ITRs and hence cannot be accepted. Thus, in view of above discussion, I find no merit in the grounds raised by the appellant. Accordingly, the addition Rs. 16,88,18,743/- made by the AO u/s. 69 of the Act on account of unexplained investment is confirmed." 4. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record, and examined the financial statements for both the current and preceding years. The core controversy lies in the timing of the i....