2025 (3) TMI 2108

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 3. The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal: "1. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the impugned order dated 13.03.2024 passed under section 147 read with section 144C(13) of the of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Tax 2(1)(2) ['AO'] in pursuance of the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel ['DRP'] making addition under section 69 of the Act is without jurisdiction and bad in law. Re: Reopening of the assessment 2. That on facts and circums....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g the assessment were just to make roving enquiries, since no independent enquiry was conducted by the AO before issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. Re: Addition on merits 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the AO erred in applying section 69 of the Act, as unexplained investment in pursuance of the directions of Dispute Resolution Panel despite the undisputed fact that the source of investment in India is from salary income earned and accrued outside India which is not taxable in India. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO and the DRP erred in not appreciating that the payment of Rs. 98,96,137/- to Jawala Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. is towards the advance for purchase of p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xt comes the sole substantive ground between the parties on merits wherein the learned lower authorities have held that the assessee to have made an unexplained investment amount of Rs. 98,97,587/-, in the course of assessment framed on 13.03.2024 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 6. Suffice to say, there is hardly any dispute between the parties as per the learned Assessing Officer's detailed discussion in para 11 page 9 thereof that he had initially proposed total unexplained investment sum addition amounting to Rs. 5,24,44,060/-. His assessment however had added the impugned sum of Rs. 98,97,587/- only on the ground that the same could not be substantiated at the assessee's behest. 7. It is in this factual backdrop that....