TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 2198
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the appellant being a non-resident with an address in Mumbai as his Indian Address. This, according to appellant, renders the entire proceeding VOID-AB-INITIO. Case Law Reference: 1. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Shirishbhai Hargovandas Sanjanwala v/s ACIT (2017), 396 ITR (Gujarat) 2. Reassessment Based on Borrowed Satisfaction: The AO initiated reassessment based on information about property purchase without proper "reasons to believe" as required by law. It's argued that the AO acted on borrowed satisfaction rather than possessing actual information or evidence of income escapement. Case Law Reference: 1. Hon'ble Bench of ITAT- Chennai in Premlatha Chhajed v/s The Income Tax Officer NCW - 5(4), Chennai (ITA No.2233/Mds/2017) 2. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ganga Saran & sons P. Ltd. Reported in 130 ITR 1 3. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in ITO v/s Lakhmanimewal Das reported in (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) 3. Violation of Natural Justice: The appellant was not given adequate opportunity to be heard, as the notice to file a reply was unreasonably short given the cir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he records were sent to Income tax office, Ward 24(3)(4), Mumbai but returned on 07.12.2018 with the postal remark "unclaimed". Since the assessee did not file his return of income and not responded for any of the statutory notices and failed to submit required information, the AO passed an exparte order u/s.144 r.w.s.147 of the Act on 28.12.2018 after giving proposal on 11.12.2018 by making an addition of Rs. 65,36,709/- towards purchase of immovable property and Rs. 20,00,000/- towards HDFC Bank deposit as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. 4. Before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee has reiterated the entire facts and raised the grounds on jurisdiction as the assessee's status has been mentioned as resident, as against the status of Non-resident. Further, the assessee has stated that the asset purchased was for Rs. 40.00 lakhs as against the value considered by the AO of Rs. 65,36,709/-, the impugned addition made by the AO need to be deleted. Further, the deposit of Rs. 20.00 Lakhs is not made during the year as alleged by the AO and hence the impugned addition also needs t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roceedings, the appellant has stated that the total consideration for the property was only Rs. 40 lakhs and all the payments were made by cheques only. 6.10 It is noted from the sale deed 22.12.2010 that sale consideration of property is Rs. 65,36,709/-. It is clear that the appellant has stated about consideration of property wrongly. The appellant is failed to discharge his onus. The appellant has not furnished satisfactory evidences reply. Therefore, the contention of the appellant is not found to be acceptable Hence the addition of Rs. 65,36,709/- made by the AD is upheld. 6.11 Accordingly, the Grounds No. 3, 4 and 5 are dismissed. Ground No. 6 6.12 This ground is regards to time deposits to tune of Rs. 20,00,000/- during the year under consideration. 6.13 During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO has stated that the appellant has made a time deposits to tune of Rs. 20,00,000/- in HDFC Bank Ltd. during the year under consideration. The appellant was asked for explanation for the same. However, the appellant was failed to do so. 8.14 It is noted from the submissions furnished by the appellant during the appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of sale dated 10.11.2010 registered on 23.12.2010 and Passports entry and exit stampings in India etc. In light of the above submissions the ld.AR prayed for deleting the additions on account of 69A made by the AO, which has been confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). 8. Per contra the ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and stated that the assessee has not furnished any of the documents / evidence in support of his claim before the lower authorities. Further the assessee has not proved with any evidence to show the source for purchase of the said immovable property and prayed for dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 9. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. Admittedly the assessee had not filed his return of income and purchased an immovable property registered in his name on 23.12.2010 with a sale consideration shown as Rs. 40.00 Lakhs and the stamp duty value of Rs. 65,36,709/-. Accordingly, the AO had reopened the case for assessment and issued statutory notice to the assessee on 26.03.2018. Since, the assessee did not participate in the assessment proceedings except requesting for t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e" 3. Violation of Natural Justice: The appellant was not given adequate opportunity to be heard, as the notice to file a reply was unreasonably short. 4. Failure to consider evidence: The appellant asserts that the AO disregarded crucial evidence regarding the acquisition and improvement costs of a property purchased on 19/01/2004 for Rs. 6,45,000/-. It is claimed that additional investments of Rs. 23,50,000/- were made for improvements through a contract agreement dated 24/01/2004 with Mr. Babulal. Despite submitting a detailed affidavit and supporting documents, the AO allegedly failed to acknowledge these expenses in determining the capital gains. The appellant argues that after applying indexation, the net capital gain should result in a capital loss of Rs. 77,916/- u/s.48 of the Act and a return of income was also submitted. The appellant further contends that the AO's insistence on concrete evidence ignores the affidavit and contract agreement provided, which should have been sufficient for assessment purposes. The AO failed to acknowledge the appellant's evidence and expenses regarding property improvements, leading to an incorre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee has stated the entire facts and raised the grounds on jurisdiction as the assessee's status has been mentioned as resident, as against the status of Non-resident. Further, the assessee has stated that the cost of improvement of Rs. 23,50,000/-incurred during the assessment year 2004-05 cannot be denied as the impugned asset sold is land and building. Therefore, the impugned additions made by the AO needs to be deleted. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance of cost of improvement in his order dated 06.03.2024 as the assessee has not furnished any evidence in support of the claim by holding as under: FINDINGS & DECISION 6.1 I have gone through the Assessment Order and submissions of the appellant. The AO has carried out additions of Rs 38:06 425-for the year under consideration Ground No. 1 and 2 6.2 These grounds are regards to jurisdiction over case. 6.3 Further it is also noted that during the course of the assessment proceedings the AO has stated that the appellant has made a request on 26.11.2018 to transfer the assessment records for the year under consideration to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the same the ld.AR submitted the agreement of sale dated 19.01.2004, agreement of transfer dated 15.10.2011, Affidavit dated 30.12.2019 for having incurred the cost of improvement of Rs. 23.50 Lakhs, contract agreement with Mr. Babulal, Bank statements, Passports entry and exit stampings in India etc. Further, the ld.AR stated that without prejudice to the earlier claim, the assessee has purchased a House property for Rs. 40.00 Lakhs which is registered in the name of assessee on 23.12.2010, within one year prior to the sale of the impugned house property for Rs. 50.00 Lakhs (on 15.10.2011) is eligible for deduction u/s.54 of the Act and prayed for allowing the same as a fresh claim. 17. Per contra the ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and stated that the assessee has not furnished any of the documents / evidence in support of his claim before the lower authorities. Further the claim of deduction u/s.54 of the Act has never been claimed before the lower authorities. Hence, prayed for dismissing the appeal of the assessee. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. It is undisputed fac....