9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to prove that the appellant has made any investment from undisclosed sources. 3. That the Ld - CIT (A) erred in facts and law in enhancing the addition made on account of unexplained investment from Rs 38,03,8501- to Rs 76,07,7001- by considering the appellant as sole owner of property, without appreciating the fact that as per sale deed appellant is 50% owner of the property. 4. That the Ld. CIT (A) erred in facts and law in upholding the contention of the Ld. AO and enhancing the addition made on account of unexplained investment without appreciating the fact that the appellant has received 50% share in property by way of gift. 5. That the Ld. CIT (A) erred in facts and law in upholding the contention of the Ld AO and enhancing the addition made on account of unexplained investment without appreciating the fact that the appellant has duly substantiated the actual source of purchase of property i.e. whole payment was made from bank account of co - owner of property in Euros directly to the builder. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in enhancing the disallowance of 20% business ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the receipt issued by the builder exhibited at pages 102 and 103 of the paper book supported by copy of ledger account of the assessee in the books of the builder placed at page 104 of the paper book. 13. U/s 69 of the Act, all that is required, is to explain the source of investment and the source of investment in the impugned property is the Euros received from Ms. Diana Perrone. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the observations of the revenue authorities that the assessee has failed to explain the source of investment. The Assessing Officer is, accordingly, directed to delete the impugned addition of Rs. 38,03,850/-. This ground is, accordingly allowed. 14. Next grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in enhancing the disallowance of 20% business expenses made by the Assessing Officer to Rs. 18,42,480/- being 100% receipts as unexplained income. 15. Facts are that while scrutinizing the return of income and on perusal of the profit and loss account, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has debited expenses at Rs. 16,44,437/-. The assessee was asked to produce the bills and vouchers and on receiving no plausible reply, the Assessing Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isions like sections 34 and 33B, which enable escaped income from new sources to be brought to tax after following a special procedure. The assessee contends that the powers of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner extend to matters considered by the Income-tax Officer, and if a new source is to be considered, then the power of remand should be exercised. By the exercise of the power to assess fresh sources of income, the assessee is deprived of a finding by two tribunals and one right of appeal. The question is whether we should accept the interpretation suggested by the Commissioner in preference to the one, which has held the field for nearly 37 years. In view of the provisions of sections 34 and 33B by which escaped income can be brought to tax, there is reason to think that the view expressed uniformly about the limits of the powers of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to enhance the assessment has been accepted by the legislature as the true exposition of the words of the section." 21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "The principle that emerges as a result of the authorities of this Court is that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdicti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is not open to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to travel outside the record, i.e., the return made by the assessee or the assessment order of the Income- tax Officer with a view to find out new sources of income and the power of enhancement under s. 31(3) of the Act is restricted to the sources of income which have been the subject-matter of consideration by the Income-tax Officer from the point of view of taxability. In this context "consideration" does not mean "incidental" or "collateral" examination of any matter by the Income-tax Officer in the process of assessment. There must be something in the assessment order to show that the Income-tax Officer applied Ms mind to the particular subject-matter or the particular source of income with a view to its taxability or to its non-taxability and not to any incidental connection. In the present case it is manifest that the Income-tax Officer has not considered the entry of Rs. 5,85,000 from the point of view of its taxability and therefore the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction, in an appeal under s.31 of the Act, to enhance the assessment." 22. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in 251 ITR 864 again conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
