9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 830X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has confirmed addition of unexplained investment of Rs. 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 Rs. 60 lakhs. The property was purchased jointly with his brother. The appellant was called upon to explain and furnish the source of the said investment since the cash flow statement did not show this investment. During the assessment proceeding, the appellant filed a revised cash flow statement explaining the investment of Rs. 69 lakhs towards cost of acquisition, registration charges, stamp duty paid, etc. The assessing officer was not satisfied with the explanation given by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/- 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 Tribunal and were reiterated before us, from the order of the Tribunal we find that the issue has been dealt with in the following manner: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t by reducing the same which cannot be accepted. Further, though the assessee made a plea that there was an existing building valued at Rs. 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 Rs. 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 Tribunal was fully justified in upholding the conclusion of the lower authorities that the explanation of the appellant in so far as the investment in question was totally unsa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
