TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been rebutted from the department side. We thus see no merit in Revenue's instant sole substantive ground. The same stands rejected accordingly. Revenue's appeal is dismissed. - ITA No. 548/Hyd./2020 - - - Dated:- 23-6-2021 - S.S. Godara, Member (J) And L.P. Sahu, Member (A) For the Appellant : Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR For the Respondents : M.A. Rahim, AR ORDER Per S.S. Godara, JM This Revenue's appeal for A.Y. 2015-16 arises against the CIT(A)-3 Visakhapatnam's order dated 27.07.2020 passed in case no. 521/2019-20 involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short 'the Act']. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. The delay of 03 days in filing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rties in his own name for a total consideration of ₹ 1,54,00,000/- during the F.Y. 2014-15 relevant to the A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessing Officer came to a conclusion that the seized material mentioned at page Nos. 1 to 8 marked as MSVK/PROPERTY DOCUMENTS/5 belongs to the appellant. The appellant was asked to complete details like cash flow statement for purchase of property to verify the actual payment made on 18-12-2019. In response, the appellant filed cash flow statement and statement of affairs and balance sheet. Since the appellant failed to furnish details with concrete evidences for purchase of property to the tune of ₹ 1,76,00,000/-, the same is added to the income of the appellant as unexplained investment in purchase of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o not understand how the Assessing Officer proceeded to add the investment of ₹ 1,54,00,000/- relating to Shri Pendela Surendra in the hands of the appellant treating the same as her unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961, when separate and Individual returns of income for the A.Y. 2015-16 were filed in the name of Shri Pendela Surendra. The impugned addition of ₹ 1,54,00,000/- relating to late Shri Pendela Surendra should not have been made in the hands of the appellant even as Legal Representative (LR) of late Shri Pendela Surendra. The Investment of ₹ 21,00,000/- made by the appellant was also considered as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act thereby taking the total unexplained investment added in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7; 44,00,000/- acquired by the appellant along with her late husband is not warranted, as the sources for the said investment are explained properly by way of filing copy of return of income, for the A.Y. 2015-16, balance sheet as at 31.03.2015 wherein the above investment was exhibited. The appellant also filed Tax Audit report. On the face of these submissions, it cannot be said that the sources for acquisition of the property by the appellant stands 'unexplained'. Accordingly, the addition of ₹ 22,00,000/- is deleted. 11.) CIT (A) Decision against Ground no. 03 against making addition towards the investment made by appellant's late husband Shri Pendela Surendra when he is separately assessed to tax. I have cov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
