Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Mr. T. Nagoor Meeran Versus The Income Tax Officer, Non-corporate Ward-7 (1) , Chennai

2015 (9) TMI 491 - ITAT CHENNAI

Unaccounted investments in purchase of properties - purchase price of the property invested in item No.2. - Held that:- Sale consideration shown at transaction mentioned at Sl No 2 of ₹ 8,92,000/- is the total of the transactions mentioned at Sl No.2 of ₹ 8.92,000/- is the total of the transactions mentioned at Sl.Nos.1 & 3 (i.e.Rs 6,90,000 + ₹ 2,02,000). Thus, there is a duplication of the amounts considered by the Assessing Officer in his order to the extent of ₹ 3,90,0 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssessee. - Decided against assessee.

Non-consideration of the opening cash balance - assessee has claimed an amount of ₹ 2,88,000/- as the opening cash available with him for making the investment rejected by AO - Held that:- We do not subscribe to view of the Revenue. Any individual will definitely have some accumulated amount with him especially when such individuals are in business earning income year after year. Considering the financial status of the assessee, the amount cl .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

CIT (A) accepted ₹ 1,50,000/- and disallowed the balance - Held that:- The claim of the assessee appears to be reasonable because on an acre of land agricultural income of ₹ 30,000 to ₹ 40,000 per annum can be rationally estimated.- Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A.No.1023/Mds. /2015 - Dated:- 26-8-2015 - SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, J. For The Appellant Mr.G.Baskar, Advocate For The Respondent Dr.B.Nischal, JCIT, D.R ORDER PER A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appea .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

operties. 1.2. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) failed to note that the assessee had explained the sources for the entire investment and a cash flow statement was also filed in support thereof. Therefore no portion of the investment is to be treated as unexplained or unaccounted. 2. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in treating the loan repayment as unaccounted in a summary manner. 3. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

1,50,000 as against ₹ 2,50,000/- Iakhs claimed. From the above it is apparent that the surviving ground before the Tribunal can be deduced as follows for adjudication:- 1. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have treated the purchase price of the property invested in item No.2 as ₹ 6,90,000 instead of ₹ 8,92,000/- and accordingly grant relief to the assessee for ₹ 1,01,000/-(8,92,000-6,90,000=2,02,000÷2=Rs.1,01,000/-) being the assessee s share of investment. 2. The Ld. CIT .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

me as ₹ 98,500/-. Subsequently, a survey u/s.133A was conducted on 03.09.2009 in the business premises of the assessee wherein certain documents and books of accounts were found. Thereafter, the AO reopened the assessment u/s.147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s.148 and completed the assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act on 30/12/2011 wherein the ld. Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 10,71,500/- on account of unaccounted investments. 4.1 Ground No.1 The purchase price of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

st, survey no.14/3, door no.26, 1500 sqft 6,90,000/- 2 17-10-2003 Nagoor Meeran and Peer Mohammed (50:50 share) property at No.87Mannur village Manickkam pillai st, survey no.14/3, door no.25/14, 1800 sqft 8,92,000/- 3 25-10-2003 Nagoor Meeran and Peer Mohammed (50:50 share) Property at no.8 7 Mannurpet village, survey no.1413, 1800 sqft 2,02,000/- In response to notice u/s. 142 (1) the assessee has in his reply stated that he has agreed to Have invested in property mentioned in sI.no.2 & 3 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

3 in respect of the above property and the sale deed for the same was executed on 17-1 0-2003 and hence this should not be taken in to account as the value as per the sale deed dated 17-10-2003 in respect of the same property is already taken into account. However, while going through the document dated 07-7-2003 and document dated 17-10-2003 it is found that the door no. mentioned in the two documents are different as per the survey report i.e. document registered on 07-7-2003 is door no.25/14 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Regarding the source of funds claimed by the assessee for the purchase of 50% share of two properties which the assessee has agreed comes to ₹ 9,37,000/-. 4.2 On appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) deleted ₹ 3,90,000/-. His findings are reproduced herein below for reference:- 4.1.2 I have considered the assessee s submissions carefully. The main reason for the Assessing Officer to suspect the assessee s explanation that that the transaction mentioned at Sl. No.1 was only an agreement entered on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

6. This observation of the Assessing Officer is not correct. In both of these documents the door numbers are mentioned as 26 only. In fact document dated 07.07.2003 contained the door no.26 while that that of the document dated 17.10.2003 contained the door no.26/14 (and not 25/14 as contemplated by the Assessing Officer) Further,.as expiained by the assessee, the agreement dated 07.07.2003 was to purchase the property of 1500 sq.ft located at No 87, Mannur village Manickkam Pillai st, survey no .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ideration at ₹ 2,02,000/- Thus, the sale consideration shown at transaction mentioned at Sl No 2 of ₹ 8,92,000/- is the total of the transactions mentioned at Sl No.2 of ₹ 8.92,000/0 is the total of the transactions mentioned at Sl.Nos.1 & 3 (i.e.Rs 6,90,000 + ₹ 2,02,000). Thus, there is a duplication of the amounts considered by the Assessing Officer in his order to the extent of ₹ 3,90,000/- (i e ₹ 1,90,000+ ₹ 2,00,000) shown in the transaction men .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

amount of ₹ 2,02,000/- is adopted by the Revenue while considering the amount invested by the assessee and the co-owner of the property. It was therefore pleaded that the assessee s share of ₹ 1,01,000/- may be deleted. Ld. D.R on the other hand relied on the orders of the Revenue. 4.4. After considering the arguments of both the parties and perusing the materials on record, I find that the issue has been considered by the Ld. CIT (A) in detail and an amount of ₹ 3,90,000/-is d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version