TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 864X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration i.e. A.Y.2004-05 could not have been issued beyond 31.03.2006. Be that as it may, as notice u/s.143(2) dated 13.11.2006 had validly been issued within the stipulated time period from the date of filing of return of income by the assessee u/s. 148 of the Act, i.e. on 07.08.2006 (supra), we, therefore, finding no substance in the aforesaid claim of the Ld. AR, dismiss the same. Addition u/s 69A - As the assessee had failed to substantiate on the basis of irrefutable documentary evidence that the cash withdrawals made from his aforesaid bank account were utilized for making investment of Rs.5 lac in in question, therefore, we are unable to concur with the claim of the Ld. AR that both the lower authorities had erred in makin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons are liable to be deleted. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add to and/or amend, alter, rescind the grounds taken here in above, before or at the time of hearing of this appeal. 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee who is a salaried employee had filed his return of income on 31.03.2005, declaring an income of Rs.83,400/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was initially processed as such u/s.143(1) of the Act. 3. Observing that the claim of the assessee of having made an investment of Rs.6.77 lac towards purchase of the flats at Bilaspur City out of his own savings was not commensurate with his returned income, the A.O reopened his case u/s.147 of the Act. Notice u/s.148 dated 01.08.2006 was issued to the assessee. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee placed on record affidavits of the aforesaid persons. The A.O in order to verify the authenticity of the aforesaid claim of the assessee issued notices to the aforementioned persons which, however, were received back undelivered. Although, it was the claim of the assessee that he had in the past advanced interest free cash loans to his aforesaid relatives, which were repaid by them in cash in due course of time, and the investment in question was, inter alia, to the extent of Rs.5 lac sourced out of the said funds, but the A.O rejected the said unsubstantiated claim and made an addition of Rs.5 lac u/s.69A of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without any success. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vailable with the assessee out of the cash repayment of loans by his relatives, therefore, both the lower authorities had grossly erred in making/sustaining the addition of the same u/s.69A of the Act. In order to buttress his claim as regards availability of the aforesaid funds at the time of making the investment, the Ld. AR took us through the copy of the bank account of the assessee which revealed the refund of the loans by his aforementioned relatives, viz.(i) Shri Vijay Chirania-Brother: Rs.1,50,000/-; (ii) Shri Vinod Rungta- Brother in law : Rs.1,00,000/-; (iii) Shri Pankaj Chirania-Brother : Rs.1,50,000/- and (iv) Shri Manish Chirania : Rs.1,00,000/-. It was averred by the Ld. AR that refund proceeds of the aforesaid loans were ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts. As observed by us hereinabove, the assessee in compliance to the notice issued u/s.148 dated 01.08.2006 had vide his letter dated 07.08.2006 requested that his original return of income be treated as a return of income filed in response to the aforesaid notice. As the assessee had impliedly filed his return of income in compliance to the notice u/s.148 of the Act, dated 07.08.2006 (supra), therefore, the notice issued u/s.143(2) dated 13.11.2006 was well within the stipulated time period. In our considered view the Ld. AR had confused the time period that was available for issuing notice u/s.143(2) in case of a simplicitor assessment, wherein such notice for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y.2004-05 could not have been issued beyond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the aforesaid cash withdrawals were available with him to source the investment to the extent of Rs.5 lac, but the same in our considered view is nothing but an unsubstantiated claim raised by him in thin air. Although our attention was drawn by the Ld. AR to the balance sheet of the assessee as on 31.03.2003, which revealed cash in hand of Rs.6,63,600.50, however, the same does not inspire any confidence. We, say so, for the reason that in case the assessee had cash-in-hand of Rs.6,63,600/- (supra) available with him on 31.03.2003, then there was no reason for him to have not produced before the A.O his books of account for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y.2004-05, to substantiate his claim that the investment of Rs.5 lac was mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
