TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 830X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RI.V.H.UBAIDHULLA, SRI.K.M.FIROZ, SMT.M.SHAJNA, SRI.S.KANNAN FOR THE RESPONDENT : SRI.KMV.PANDALAI, SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL FOR INCOME TAX. JUDGEMENT Antony Dominic, J. Heard Senior Counsel for the appellant and the Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This appeal arises from the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in ITA No.282/2014. By this order, the Tribunal has confirmed addition of unexplained investment of ₹ 69,00,000/- under Section 69 of the Income TaxAct. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant had purchased 35.137 cents of land in the Thrikkakkara North Village for a consideration of ₹ 60 lakhs. The property wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the reason that the rent was received for a completed portion of the building during the previous year? 3. The Appellate Tribunal is justified in refusing to reckon the value of the existing building, namely ₹ 24,00,000/- and approving the valuation done in other aspects without referring to approved valuer to arrive at correct valuation? 4. Is not the decision of the Appellate Tribunal erroneous insofar as the impugned assessment order was passed without following the principles of natural justice and without fairness inaction insofar as even personal hearing was not afforded to the appellant before finalising the assessment? 4. Although various contentions impugning the orders were raised before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me from the said building in this assessment year, the construction was already completed and this is only the devise adopted by the assessee to explain the investment by reducing the same which cannot be accepted. Further, though the assessee made a plea that there was an existing building valued at ₹ 24,00,000/- which was included in the total cost of construction of the building, there was no evidence to suggest the same in this assessment year. Considering all these facts, we are of the opinion that the assessee has failed to explain the source of investment to the extent of ₹ 69,00,000/-. Hence, we are inclined to confirm the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. 5. The above factual finding of the Tribunal shows that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
