TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 556
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed a condonation application along with an Affidavit explaining the reason for such delay. After considering the contents of the condonation application filed along with the Affidavit and after hearing the ld. Departmental Representative, the delay in filing of the Cross Objection by the assessee is condoned. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 29.11.2014 declaring total income at Rs. 15,72,980/-. Case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and accordingly statutory notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee. Subsequently, a notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act along with a questionnaire was issued and served on the assessee in response to which there was no compliance from the side of the assessee. The Assessing Officer therefore proceeded to complete the assessment on the basis of material available on record and completed the assessment u/s. 144 of the Act determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 3,00,80,480/- wherein he made addition of Rs. 2,85,07,500/- by observing as under : "6. The assessee has failed to furnish any evidence in respect of the purchase of immovable pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on AIR data. The assessee has demonstrated with documentary evidences that these properties were not purchased in the year under consideration, but in earlier years, and the payments were duly accounted for in the books of account and financial statements filed with returns of income. 7.2 In respect of Flat Nos. 9 & 10 at Panchavati Anand Sankul, the assessee produced the Agreement for Sale dated 25.11.2011 and the Deed of Apartment dated 08.07.2013. The consideration of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- was paid during F.Y. 2011-12 and is duly reflected in the audited balance sheet as on 31.03.2012 under Schedule of Fixed Assets, supported by the ledger and financial statements. Thus, no investment was made during F.Y. 2013-14 relevant to Α.Υ. 2014-15. 7.3 With regard to Shop No. 5 at Haware Infotech Park, the assessee produced the Allotment Letter dated 25.09.2009, receipts issued by the promoter, and ICICI Bank statements evidencing payments aggregating to Rs. 1,41,00,000/- during March-September 2009. The total purchase consideration of Rs. 45,96,700/- is reflected as "Shop Advance" in the audited balance sheet as on 31.03.2012, and later capitalised in F.Y. 201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... facts of the case and the applicable provisions of law. 2. On facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the assessee has not explained the payments made towards purchase of immovable property le. Flat No. 9 & 10, Anand Sankul, Nashik. The 'Agreement to Sale', dated 25/11/2011, at clause no. 5 specifies that the payment of Rs. 25,00,000/- was made in cheque and cash without exact details thereof. 3. On facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the 'Deed of Apartment', dated 31/05/2013, does not specify anywhere about the exact details of payments made at Rs. 1,40,00,000/- towards purchase of property ie. Flat No. 9 & 10, Anand Sankul, Nashik over the period. 4. On facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the assessee has not fully and completely disclosed the details of the transactions in his books of accounts as regards the purchase of immovable property ie. Flat No. 9 & 10, Anand Sankul, Nashik. The assessee has debited the property at Rs. 1,47,23,500/- in 'Fixed Assets' as on 31/03/2014 inclusive of stamp dut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee, there is no reason for Revenue to file an appeal. He accordingly submitted the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue should be dismissed. 8. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and ld.CIT(A)/NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the Assessing Officer in the assessment order passed u/s. 144 of the Act made addition of Rs. 2,85,07,000/- on the ground that as per the AIR information the assessee has purchased properties worth Rs. 1,45,07,500/- and Rs. 1,40,00,000/- and the return does not explain the huge investment in properties and the assessee did not submit any detail during the course of assessment proceedings. We find before ld.CIT(A)/NFAC the assessee filed certain evidences based on which the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC called for a Remand Report from the Assessing Officer who has submitted his Remand Report and which has been reproduced by ld.CIT(A)/NFAC in the order and which reads as under thereupon:- "The assessee has submitted the details regarding both the properties as under: 1. The residential flats....