9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 838X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income-tax (Appeals) has seriously erred in sustaining an addition of Rs. 2,48,000 on account of on-money allegedly paid for the purchase of flat particularly when details and source of the same was completely explained. B. On law : 3. The appellant submits that the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was incorrect in not considering the whole order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-3, Surat, as illegal and invalid being based on improper and invalid assumption of jurisdiction over the above appellant because the statutory mandatory basic provision contained in relevant section have been violated. C. Miscellaneous : 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice under section 158BD of the Income-tax Act in reply to which the assessee filed return of income at nil. The assessee was asked to clarify the investments made in the property. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee paid a sum of Rs. 3,73,000 through cheques and Rs. 2,48,000 had been paid as on-money in cash. The assessee, however, submitted that a sum of Rs. 3,73,000 was paid from his own funds which had been duly reflected in the accounts and in the return of income. The remaining amount of Rs. 2,48,000 had been paid by his father who was an agriculturist out of his agricultural income. It was submitted that the source of income of Rs. 2,48,000 in cash is, therefore, explained. The Assessing Officer observed that in the bala ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion made by him in a sum of Rs. 2,73,000 plus Rs. 1,00,000 invested by his wife. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) did not accept the explanation regarding source of Rs. 2,48,000 and accordingly addition in a sum of Rs. 2,48,000 was confirmed. 4. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has filed affidavit of his father in which it was confirmed that he has contributed Rs. 2,50,000 from his savings out of agricultural income for purchase of flat by his son, i.e., the assessee. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that since the source is proved by the father of the assessee through an affidavit, therefore, no addition should have been made. He has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the builder. The assessee in his initial reply admitted before the Assessing Officer that the flat in question has been purchased by him in his name for a sum of Rs. 3,73,000. However, the seized material proves that it was purchased for a sum of Rs. 6,21,000. The amount of Rs. 3,73,000, according to the assessee was paid by cheque. The builders in their statements have admitted to have received on-money from purchasers for sale of the flats. The seized material is, therefore, supported by the statements of the builders. Ultimately, when the assessee was confronted with the seized material, he has changed his version and explained that remaining amount of Rs. 2,48,000 has been paid by him out of Rs. 2,50,000 contributed by his father. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove, and the facts that no entry is also recorded in the account of the assessee in respect of the amount contributed by the assessee's father, we do not find any justification to interfere with the orders of the authorities below. We confirm the addition of Rs. 2,48,000. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee on merit is dismissed. 7. The other ground is regarding jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. The assessee submitted before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that he is assessed regularly to tax in Range 7. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-3, Surat does not have jurisdiction over his case. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) noted that after search all the cases were centralised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Departmental representative submitted that since the assessee has not raised this ground either before the Assessing Officer or before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and no specific ground is taken in the grounds of appeal before the Tribunal, therefore, submission of learned counsel for the assessee may not be entertained which also requires verification of facts. 9. We have considered the submissions of the parties and do not find any justification to consider the submissions of learned counsel for the assessee. We may also note here that when the learned Departmental representative objected to the submissions of learned counsel for the assessee, learned counsel for the assessee tried to raise an additional ground of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
