TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO as well as CIT(A) both did not look into the evidences brought on record by the assessee. The CIT(A) also has not given any cogent reason as to why said addition sustains. In fact, the observation of the CIT(A), that no documentary evidence was shown in respect of father in law and wife is incorrect and needs to be verified. Therefore, it will be appropriate to remand back this matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify the evidences which were produced by the assessee before the CIT(A). Ground allowed for statistical purpose. CIT(A) was rightly rejected the deduction u/s 80C of the Act. - ITA No. 1636/DEL/2015, ITA No. 1637/DEL/2015 - - - Dated:- 5-5-2020 - Shri N. K. Billaiya, Accountant Member And Ms Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Adv For the Respondent : Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the order dated 06/1/2015 passed by CIT(A)-XIV, New Delhi for Assessment Years 2007-08. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under :- ( ITA No. 1636/DEL/2015) 1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has gross ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny adverse material or evidence, is unsustainable and contrary to law and deserves to be deleted. 5. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in law and on facts by denying deduction under section 80C of the Act amounting to ₹ 50, 000/-. 6. That the learned Commissioner of Income (Appeals) Tax has further erred in framing the assessment without providing to the assessee, a fair, proper and meaningful opportunity of being heard, violating the principles of natural justice and thus such an order of CIT (A) is vitiated both on fact and in law. 7. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in sustaining the levy of interest under section 234A and section 234B of the Act, which interest is not leviable on the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant. ITA No. 1636/DEL/2015 1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred both in law and on facts in sustaining an order of assessment under section 147/ 143(3) of the Act at an income of ₹ 19, 61, 370/- as against returned income of ₹ 3, 13, 955/-. 2. That the learned Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Act amounting to ₹ 72, 546/-. 6. That the learned Commissioner of Income (Appeals) Tax has further erred in framing the assessment without providing to the assessee, a fair, proper and meaningful opportunity of being heard, violating the principles of natural justice and thus such an order of CIT (A) is vitiated both on fact and in law. 7. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in sustaining the levy of interest under section 234A and section 234B of the Act, which interest is not leviable on the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant. 3. Firstly we are taking up the brief facts of ITA No. 1636/Del/2015. The Assessing Officer received an information from ADIT (Inv), Unit-III(3), Delhi that the assessee made investment in cash for the purchase of a commercial space at Indirapuram Habited Centre, Ghaziabad. In fact, a search and seizure operation was carried out on M/s AEZ Group (part of Aerens group) of companies on 17.08.2011 and during the course of search operations, certain disks, loose papers were sized. During the course of investigation, it was gathered that AEZ group was constructing v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned (Rs.) 1 2005-06 02/02/2006 201800 2 2006-07 18/12/2006 257823 3 2007-08 21/07/2007 378125 The ADIT(Inv.) unit-III(3), New Delhi intimated that a search and seizure operation was carried out on AEZ Group(Part of Aerens Group) on 17.08.2011 and during search certain discs, loose papers were seized. AEZ group is constructing various projects and sold commercial spaces to different parties receiving cash payments. During the course of search/survey operation of AEZ group, it has been accepted by investor that they have made cash payments for booking/ purchase of property in the above said project. On the basis of information the then ITO after recording satisfaction in writing, initiated proceeding u/s 147 of the Act with the approval of Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range -25, New Delhi and issued notice u/s 148 to the assessee on 08.06.2012. Assessee in response to Notice u/s 148 submitted return earlier filed on dt. 21.09.2007 for the impugned year containin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Ld. AR further submitted that the Assessee explained all the factual evidence before the CIT(A) as well but the CIT(A) has not at all considered the same. Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that the additions does not sustain. 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order and the order of the CIT(A). 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The Ld. AR during the hearing submitted that the assessee is not pressing Ground No. 2, hence Ground No. 2 is dismissed. It is pertinent to note that the CIT(A) observed that since no withdrawal was shown in the return of income by the HUF, therefore, it is difficult to believe that the HUF has contributed for the household expenses of the assessee. Besides that the CIT(A) also rejected the contention of the assessee that the assessee required the cash in hand for his probable medical expenses. But the fact remains that the assessee has also explained the introduction capital of ₹ 8,25,505/- as capital by stating that he had received money from his father in law of ₹ 5,00,000/-, amount transferred from minor son saving bank account of ₹ 1,41,800/-, amount transferred from m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
