9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 402X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und of Appeal No. 3 pertaining to a transaction for purchase of property on 08-06-2009 which related to Assessment Year 2010-11 whereas the AO while computing the payment of on-money considered the transaction of purchase of property by the assessee dated 18-02-2009 which was relevant to A.Y.2009-10 only. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and law in confirming the action of the AO of the appellate order for issuing notice u/s 148 in respect of the transaction of purchase of property on 08-06-2009 while deciding Ground of Appeal No.2 because according to him, the notice for the AY 2010-11 could have been issued upto 31-03-2017 but while doing so, it was ignored that the appellant was in appeal against issue of notice u/s 148 for AY 2009-10 on 31-03-2017 which was beyond the time limitation prescribed under the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and law in giving a direction of the appellate order while deciding Ground of Appeal No.3 to re-calculate the extra money/premium invested by the appellant in the transaction dated 08- 06- 2009 although the said transaction of purchase of property related to AY 2010-11 and the appeal of the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) was for the AY 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment must be a finding necessary for the disposal of the particular case, that is to say, in respect of the particular assessed and in relation to the particular assessment year. To be a necessary finding, it must be directly involved in the disposal of the case. It is possible in certain cases that in order to render a finding in respect of A, a finding in a respect of B may be called for. For instance, where the facts show that the income can belong either to A or B and to no one else, a finding that it belongs to B or does not belong to B would he determinative of the issue whether it can be taxed as A's income. A finding respecting B is initially involved as a step in the process of reaching the ultimate finding respecting A. If, however, the finding as to As liability can be directly arrived at without necessitating a finding in respect of B, then a finding made in respect of B is an incidental finding only. It is not a finding necessary for the disposal of the case pertaining to A. As regards the expression "direction" in section I53(3)(ii) of the Act, it is now well settled that it must be an express direction necessary for the disposal of the case before the authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intimate the Stamp Duty authorities and not to direct the Assessing Officer to make the assessments of enhanced consideration paid in the hands of the appellant. 4.6.4 In absence of any findings or directions in the appeal order dated 11/02/2016, the provisions of section 150(1) of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked to extend the period of limitation, therefore the notice given by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act is beyond period of limitation. 4.6.5 However, in this case purchase transactions of the-appellant were dated 18.02.2009 falling in AY 2009-10 and second transaction was dated 08.06.2009 falling in AY 2010-11. The period of limitation as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act for reopening assessment for the assessment year 2010-11 was to expire on 31/03/2017. The Assessing Officer has issued notice u/s 148 of the Acton that date, therefore in respect of 2nd transaction dated 08/06/2009 the notice of reassessment was issued well within time even if the contention of the appellant that there were no directions given by the appellant authority is accepted. The ground of appeal is decided partly in favour of the appellant for the reason that the n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n affidavit in this regard. In these circumstances, the onus shifted to the appellant to bring on record evidence to the contrary to show that nothing more than the amount mentioned in the registered sale deed has been paid. There has been no effort on behalf of the appellant to bring on record evidence the contrary', therefore the Assessing Officer was justified in treating addition of amount paid as investment from unaccounted sources. I have also considered the contention of the appellant that consideration mentioned in registered document cannot be disbelieved by virtue of provisions of Section 91 & 92 of the evidence Act. The appellant placed reliance upon decision of Parmjjt Singh Vs. ITO 327 ITR 580. It is accepted that payment of premium over and above sale consideration mentioned in the registered document cannot be attributed to the immovable property transaction. However there is no bar in holding that more money exchanged hands which partakes character of payment though connected to transaction but not in respect of consideration. The appellant is obliged to tender explanation about source of this extra money which he has failed. However, as discussed in the paragra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
