TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gathered that the A.O after perusing the said factual position and being conversant of the fact that the investment did not pertain to the year under consideration, but was relatable to A.Y. 2009-10, had thus after due application of mind accepted the claim of the assessee. We have further perused the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Gabrial India Ltd. [1993 (4) TMI 55 - BOMBAY High Court] and are of the considered view that the same being distinguishable on facts would thus not assist the case of the assessee. We are further of the considered view that after the insertion of Explanation 2 to Sec. 263 w.e.f 01.06.2015, which would be applicable to the case of the assessee, the order which in the opinion of the Pr. CIT had been passed by the A.O without making inquiries or verification, thus, on the said count would be rendered as erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, and as such amenable for revision u/s 263. We thus in light of our aforesaid observations uphold the revision of the order u/s 263 on the aforesaid issue under consideration. Applicability of the provisions of Sec. 50C - Held that:- We have d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or vary the grounds of appeal at any time before the decision of the appeal. 2 . Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee had efiled his return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 30.07.2012, declaring total income of ₹ 4,78,450/-. The return of income of the assessee was processed as such under Sec. 143(1) of the Act . That on the basis of AIR information that the assessee had during the year under consideration purchased certain Immovable property for a consideration of ₹ 5,00,00,000/-, the case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny assessment. The A.O vide his order passed under Sec. 143(3), dated. 30.03.2015 assessed the income of the assessee at ₹ 12,56,775/-. 3. That after the culmination of the assessment proceedings the Pr.CIT-21, Mumbai, called for the case records of the assessee. The Pr. CIT on perusing the case records observed that the assessee vide Agreement dated. 18.11.2011 which was registered on the same day, had purchased a Plot no.21 at Pune admeasuring 1919.37 Sq.mtrs from Sh. Avinash Bhosale for a consideration of ₹ 5,00,00,000/-. The Pr.CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a loan raised by him from his client, i.e M/s Kalpavruksha Plantation Pvt. Ltd. It was submitted by the assessee that because of certain reasons the agreement could not be executed and registered during the said year, therefore, the amount paid to the seller of the property, viz. Sh. Avinash N. Bhosale Mrs. Gauri A. Bhosale was shown as an advance, while for the loan raised from M/s Kalpavruksha Plantation Pvt. Ltd. was reflected as an unsecured loan in the balance sheets of the assessee for the A.Y 2009-10 till 2011-12. The assessee further submitted before the CIT that as the lendor, viz. M/s Kalpavruksha Plantation Pvt. Ltd. was pressing hard for the repayment of the loan, therefore, the assessee had raised a loan of ₹ 5 Crore from his mother Mrs. Suneeta Pawar on 14.05.2011, which was utilised for repaying the outstanding loan of ₹ 5 Crore to M/s Kalpavruksha Plantation Pvt. Ltd. It was submitted by the assessee that as on the date of filing of the return of income for the year under consideration, viz. A.Y.2012-13 the loan of ₹ 5 Crore was outstanding, therefore, for the said reason, during the course of the assessment proceedings it was submitted by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elevant extract of the Agreement (Page 42) of the Paper book ( APB ). That in the backdrop of the aforesaid factual matrix, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that now when it remained as a matter of fact that the assessee had paid the purchase consideration on 21.08.2008, i.e the period relevant to A.Y. 2009-10, therefore, the CIT could not have held the assessment framed by the A.O for A.Y. 2012-13 as erroneous . The ld. A.R further took us through the Balance sheet of the assessee for A.Y. 2009-10 (Page 59 of APB ), wherein the amount paid by the assessee to the seller of the property stood reflected as an advance under the head Bungalow-JIAI-Advance for property: ₹ 5,00,00,000/- , while for a corresponding liability for the same amount was shown against the name of the lendor, viz. M/s Kalpavruksha Plantation Pvt. Ltd. : ₹ 5,00,00,000/- . It was thus submitted by the ld. A.R that the fact that the purchase consideration of ₹ 5 Crore paid by the assessee to the seller could safely be gathered from the Balance sheet of the assessee which was available before the A.O. It was thus submitted by the ld. A.R that the A.O being well conversant of the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment on the basis of the AIR information that an investment of ₹ 5 Crore was made by the assessee for purchase of an immovable property during the year under consideration, however, the A.O while framing the assessment failed to make necessary verifications on the said material aspect itself. We find that the Pr.CIT while deliberating on the case records observed that the assessee on being called upon by the A.O to furnish the source of investment in the aforesaid property had submitted that the same was made from the unsecured loan of ₹ 5 Crore raised from his mother Mrs. Suneeta Pawar. However, the Pr. CIT on perusal of the details and the bank statement, therein gathered that the loan of ₹ 5,00,00,000/- raised by the assessee from his mother Mrs. Suneeta Pawar on 14.05.2011 was paid to M/s Kalpavriksa Planation Pvt. Ltd on 19.05.2011, and not to the seller of the aforesaid property, i.e Sh. Avinash Bhosale. We find that the Pr. CIT on a careful deliberation of the Agreement observed that that the assessee had as a matter of fact already paid the purchase consideration of ₹ 5 crore to the seller of the property, viz. Sh. Avinash Bhosale on 21.08.2008, v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at necessary verifications were made by the A.O during the course of the assessment proceedings, no such fact emerges from the record. However, the fact as it so remains is that the A.O merely placed on record the documents furnished by the assessee and did not make any verifications by deliberating on the same. We are of the firm conviction that from the withholding by the assessee of the actual source of the investment, viz. loan raised by him on 21.08.2008 from his client, i.e M/s Kalpavruksha Plantation Pvt. Ltd., during the course of the assessment proceedings, it can safely be inferred that the same had been so done with a purpose of avoiding verification of certain issues which would had a strong bearing on the income of the assessee. We are of the considered view that the acceptance of the claim of the assessee by the A.O without making any verification, thus clearly renders the order passed by the A.O on the said aspect, as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. We also do not find ourselves to be in agreement with the contention of the ld. A.R that as the fact that the assessee had made the payment of the purchase consideration not from the loan raised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
