9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of the proceedings and, completion of assessment under the Act. ' 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining an addition of Rs. 6, 91, 875/- on account of alleged unexplained investment in the commercial property at Indirapuram Habitat Centre, Ghaziabad. 3.1. That in doing so, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the basic fact that the said investment amounting to Rs. 6, 91, 875/- was duly explained to have been made out of cash balance available with the assessee - appellant and in order to substantiate the same, copy of cash flow statements were filed before learned assessing officer and CIT (A) both, but the same has been arbitrarily brushed aside by learned CIT (A) on basis of mere subjective opinion, which is wholly untenable in law and as such, the addition deserves to be deleted. 3.2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in sustaining the aforesaid addition on irrelevant and extraneous considerations without there being any adverse material and evidence and as such the aforesaid addition is purely based on surmises and conjectures ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tat Centre, Ghaziabad. 3.1. That in doing so, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the basic fact that the said investment amounting to Rs. 6, 91, 875/- was duly explained to have been made out of cash balance available with the assessee - appellant and in order to substantiate the same, copy of cash flow statements were filed before learned assessing officer and CIT (A) both, but the same has been arbitrarily brushed aside by learned CIT (A) on basis of mere subjective opinion, which is wholly untenable in law and as such, the addition deserves to be deleted. 3.2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in sustaining the aforesaid addition on irrelevant and extraneous considerations, without there being any adverse material and evidence and as such the aforesaid addition is purely based on surmises and conjectures and is liable to be deleted. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in law and on facts in sustaining an addition of Rs. 9, 55, 542/- on account of alleged addition to the capital account of the assessee - appellant. 4.1. That the learned Commissioner of Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng investments in Indirapuram Habited Centre Project, Ghaziabad:- Name: Shri Neetu Nayyar and Shri Shiv Kumar Nayyar Unit: Ground Floor, Commercial 750 sq. ft. Date: 16.03.2007 Amount paid by cheque: Rs. 9,22,470 Amount paid by cash: Rs. 13,83,750 Total amount paid: Rs. 23,06,220 On the basis of the aforesaid information, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 08.06.2012 and served on the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to furnish the details/source of the investments of Rs. 23,06,220/-. In response, the assessee submitted part details and in the absence of complete details of source of investments, the Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs. 15,17,380/- to the total income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer also disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 80C for want of evidence of investment and completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act at the taxable income of Rs. 18,39,120/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings on various dates i.e. on 17.01.2013, 28.01.2013, 05.01.2013, 11.02.2013, 18.02.2013 and 28.02.2013. However, when the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 142(1) dt. 6.3.2013 requiring certain details on dt. 11.3.2013 to be furnished, assessee's C.A. fell ill (high fever and Diarrhea) on dt. 11.03.2013 and was not in a position to attend the case. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee handed over the required documents to C.A. but could not submitted the same due to abovementioned fact. The Ld. AR pointed out that the assessee was having all the documents/details regarding addition to capital amounting Rs. 8,25,505/- from friends and relatives was the source of receipt of capital which was available with the assessee but due to unavoidable circumstances, the same could not be submitted and the Assessing Officer completed the assessment proceedings on 12.03.2013 which is 19 days prior to last date of time barring i.e. 31.03.2013. The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer should have given one more opportunity as the assessee's counsel was appearing regularly and on one date he could not appear due to unavoidable circumstances, all these documents/details a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
