Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 206 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 69C/68 - case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment under “Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection”- investments in property made by her during the year were not commensurate to her returned income - CIT-A deleted the addition admiring additional evidence - HELD THAT:- A.O in the course of the assessment proceedings had called for the copies of the ‘agreements’ in question from the Joint Sub-registrar(s), Mumbai. The aforesaid factual position can safely be gathered from a perusal of assessment order. On being confronted with the said fact, D.R could not rebut the same - as the copies of the ‘agreements’ in question were there before the A.O in the course of the assessment proceedings, therefore, the claim of the ld. D.R that the CIT(A) had admitted the same in violation of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, is devoid of any merit, and thus, is rejected. Unexplained investment - As revealed beyond any doubt that as observed by the CIT(A), and rightly so, except for a payment of ₹ 13,32,000/- (supra) that was made by the assessee with respect to an ‘agreement’ pertaining to one of the property, viz. Flat No. 101 & 201–Insignia; dated 05.05.2014, no other investment as regards either of the aforesaid properties in question was made by her during the year under consideration. We, thus, are in agreement with the view taken by the CIT(A) that as the assessee had during the year under consideration not made any investment with respect to the properties in question, except for an amount that was sourced from her returned income, thus, the addition made by the A.O u/s. 69 or u/s. 68 could not be sustained and was liable to be vacated - neither there is anything discernible from the records nor any material has been brought to our notice by the ld. D.R which would prove that the assessee had made any investment qua the properties in question during the year under consideration. Accordingly, finding no infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(A) that no part of the addition made by the A.O either u/s 69 or u/s 68 can be sustained, we, thus, uphold his order. - Decided against revenue.
|