TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered in detail claim of assessee that a sum of ₹ 22.5 lakhs was received from Mr.P.Murugesan as a part of joint venture. However, he refused to accept this claim. Nevertheless, while completing the assessment he did not make any addition mentioning that the unexplained investment of ₹ 22.5 lakhs would be considered for addition in assessment year 2008-09. No doubt, it is true that the said amount was considered in the assessment done for assessment year 2008-09. The Tribunal had an assessee’s appeal cancelled the said addition for a reason that the income did not belong to assessment year 2008-09, and the addition was based on confession given by the assessee. However, a reading of the assessment done for the impugned assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1961 (in short Rs. Act ) by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central- 2, Chennai. 2. Facts, apropos are that there was a search in the premises of one Shri Madanlal D.Chawla on 10.01.2012. During the course of the search, a copy of an agreement of sale deed dated 09.01.2007 entered between the assessee and one Shri P.Pongopal was found and seized. As per this agreement, assessee had contracted to purchase eleven flats constructed by M/s.Ponram Promoters for a total consideration of ₹ 1,10,00,000/- against which an advance of ₹ 40,00,000/- was paid by the assessee on 09.01.2007 itself. The AO required the assessee to explain the source of the cash advance of ₹ 40 lakhs, during the course of assessment proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under:- 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. There is no dispute that an agreement of sale was entered with Shri P.Pongopal on 09.01.2007. Consequent to this, assessee paid ₹ 40 lakhs advance. Out of this, assessee disclosed ₹ 17.5 lakhs as payment to purchase of flats. Further, there is a failure for disclosing the balance of ₹ 22.5 lakhs. The AO brought this ₹ 22.5 lakhs in the assessment year 2008-09, though the said amount was said to be paid on 09.01.2007, relating to financial year 2006-07 pertaining to assessment year 2007-08. As per the provisions of the section 69B, only undisclosed investment in the assessment year under consideration i.e., 2008-09 could be brought in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. PCIT to assess the very same amount again for the impugned assessment year would result in taxing the same amount twice. Contention of assessee was that the AO had taken a conscious decision to omit the sum of ₹ 22.5 lakhs from the income of assessee for the impugned assessment year and tax it for the succeeding assessment year. Thus, according to assessee, the PCIT was trying to substitute his view with a lawful view taken by the AO. 2.3 However, the PCIT was not impressed. According to him, just because an amount was considered for assessment in a subsequent assessment year, would not preclude the Revenue to make the addition of such sum in the correct assessment year. He held that the assessment order for assessment year 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the AO had made a serious mistake of not considering the amount in full for the impugned assessment year. As per the ld.D.R, this rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is not disputed by the assessee that agreement for sale dated 09.01.2007 did mention an advance of ₹ 40 lakhs as paid by the assessee on that date. It is also not disputed that assessee had in a statement recorded from him on 27.04.2012 admitted such sum to be a part of his unexplained business income. The AO after going through the submissions of assessee had held that assessee had disclosed only ₹ 17.5 lakhs in his return of income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
