TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of investment in the land, was not clear. He also pointed out that since the other two parties have owned the investment, the Assessing Officer should have to investigate the source of investment in their respective hands by initiating appropriate proceedings and in case they were not assessed with the Assessing Officer, the concerned Assessing Officer should have to pass on the information to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for taking the necessary action. Having observed so, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition - Decided in favour of assessee Addition u/s 68 - loan received through banking channels - Held that:- It is not in dispute that these parties are assessed to income-tax, having PAN and also they have confirmed the fact of granting loan to the assessee. Moreover, it is also pertinent to note that the Assessing Officer has made this addition without inviting objections from the assessee and without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard. There is nothing on record to suggest that the Assessing Officer has issued any summons to the respective parties. In this case, we find that the depositors in this case are established their identity and genuin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... calculation thereof and that your appellant denies the chargeability of interest. - The A.O. has grossly erred in issuing notice u/s - 271(l)(c) for the reason that the notice is issued without recording the satisfaction in the assessment order which is the prerequisite condition for issuance of notice. In absence of recording of such satisfaction the notice itself is illegal and bade in law. It may be held so. 3. Your appellant therefore prays that the relief may be granted on all grounds by deleting the addition of income and holding that the interest charge is illegal and that the penalty notice issued u/s - 271(l)(c) be quashed. 2.1 The solitary ground taken by the Revenue in its appeal reads as under:- The ld. Commissioner of Income tax (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the income addition of ₹ 1,32,97,025/- made on account of unexplained investment in purchases of property u/s 69 of the Act. 2.3 The grounds taken by the assessee in her cross-objection read as under:- 1. The learned Income Tax Officer has erred in stating in Ground No.1 of the appeal that the assessee has made an investment on account of an unexplained investment in purchas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee in support of her contention furnished the affidavits made by the above persons on non-judicial stamp paper. She has also furnished the copy of return of income of Shri Arvind L. Patel, however Shri Vinod Solanki did not file the return of income. The bank statement of aforesaid persons was produced before the lower authorities alongwith a Memorandum of Understanding. On perusal of bank statement of Shri Arvind L. Patel and Shri Vinod Solanki, it was noticed that both the persons had deposited ₹ 65,00,000/- and ₹ 58,94,325/- on the same day i.e., on 03.10.2007 in cash and made payorders. The Assessing Officer , after rejecting the contentions of the assessee, treated the amount in question as unexplained and added the same to the income of the assessee. 3.2 Matter was carried before the First Appellate Authority, wherein various contentions were raised on behalf of the assessee and having considered the same, the CIT(A) deleted the addition in question, which has been opposed on behalf of the Revenue, inter alia, submitting that the CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,32,97,025/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of une ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the addition in question. The CIT(A) has also rightly observed that the source of investment by the other two persons, who have owned the amount of investment in the land, was not clear. He also pointed out that since the other two parties have owned the investment, the Assessing Officer should have to investigate the source of investment in their respective hands by initiating appropriate proceedings and in case they were not assessed with the Assessing Officer, the concerned Assessing Officer should have to pass on the information to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for taking the necessary action. Having observed so, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition in question. Thus, in our opinion, these reasoned finings of the CIT(A) do not require any interference from our side; we uphold the same. 4. Next issue is with regard to the addition u/s 68 of the Act in respect of ₹ 20 lakhs loan received through banking channels from Jayambe Traders and Smt. Rekha N. Patel. 4.1 The facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has taken loan from Jay Ambe Traders and Smt. Rekha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
