9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 1049X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellate Authority or in short as ' the Ld. 'FAA') in appeal No.10131/18-19 arising out of an appeal before it against the order dated 27.03.2015 passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the ITO, Ward-18(1), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ld. AO'). 2. Heard and perused the record. The assessee company, during the relevant financial year, had purchased immovable property at an auction from Kotak Mahindra Bank for a total consideration of Rs. 7,31,00,000/- plus stamp charges of Rs. 43,86,000/-. The ld. AO passed an ex parte order u/s 144 of the Act making an addition of Rs. 7,31,00,000/- on account of unexplained source of this investment in the property. The same was challenged by the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mined large investment in property as compared to the total income and which was matter of dispute before the ld.CIT(A) in the first round of litigation, wherein the Tribunal had directed to admit the additional evidence of the assessee and to decide the issue. The ld. AR submitted that the ld.CIT(A), however, has fallen in error in going beyond the directions of the Tribunal in finding a new source of addition by making allegation that when an amount was returned to M/s LMJ Logistics Ltd., there was cash deposit. She submitted that the addition by the AO was made on account of alleged undisclosed source of investment u/s 69 of the Act which was changed by the ld.CIT(A) to the addition u/s 68 of the Act to the extent of Rs. 1,75,50,000/-. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment order was with regard to questioning the source of investment in the property and before the ld.CIT(A), on behalf of the assessee, relevant additional evidences in the form of registered sale deed, loan sanction letter, account statements, unsecured loan confirmations from M/s LMJ Logistics Ltd. were filed and based upon them the ld.CIT(A) was satisfied that the investment was not from an undisclosed source. There is no reason to interfere in that too. 5.1 However, the ld.CIT(A), being too intrigued, entered into the controversy on the basis of statement of bank account of the assessee with the Axis Bank that while making the repayment of the unsecured loan to M/s LMJ Logistics Ltd., there were certain repayments to M/s LMJ Logis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urce of investment in property, be that by way of investment or repayment of loans and that there was no change in the source of addition. We are of considered view that in the present case examining the investment in property from known source or disclosed income was a different exercise done by AO from the exercise done by CIT(A) in examining source of cash deposits in bank account . In former the issue was to examine the source as existed on the date of investment made and in later the issue was to examine the source on the date the sum was credited in the Books of Accounts. So for all reasons discussed above the assessee was supposed to be put to notice which CIT(A) failed. 8. Consequently, we are inclined to allow the grounds No.3 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
