9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 931X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed u/s 143(3) on 02/03/2021 is not at all erroneous so for as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue under the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the disputed property is purchased from relative therefore, the provision to section 56(2)(x) with explanation 56(2)(vii) is not applicable under the facts of the case. More over it not a capital asset being a rural agriculture land." 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed his return of income on 24/07/2018 declaring total income of Rs. 4,66,110/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS under Limited Scrutiny to examine the following issues: (i) Investment in immovable property (ii) Unsecured loans The Assessing Officer issued notice to the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eing heard to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of learned Pr. CIT dated 26/03/2023, the assessee preferred the present appeal on the grounds mentioned above. 4. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act is not erroneous and so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue under the facts and circumstances of the case and further submitted that the disputed property is purchased from relative, therefore, the provision of section 56(2)(x) with explanation 56(2)(vii) is not applicable under the facts of the case and the same is not a capital asset being a rural agricultural land. Learned counsel for the assessee has taken us to the various documents and judicial precedents in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etween 1,00,000 to 10,00,000 and the seller Mohd. Khalil alias Khalik is a relative of the assessee and in support of the above contention, a confirmation letter from the seller has also been furnished. The learned Assessing Officer accepted the said contention/clarification given by the assessee and made no addition. In our considered opinion, the said approach of the A.O. requires any interference u/s 263 of the Act. 8. Further, it is also found that in so far as second issue i.e. increase in unsecured loan during the assessment year under consideration, the assessee had furnished 41 lenders from unsecured loans of Rs. 2,59,00,000/- which has been taken during the year under consideration. The assessee had also furnished the bank stateme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esponsibility of the firm. The moment the firm gives a satisfactory explanation and produces the person who has deposited the amount, then the burden of the firm is discharged and in that case that credit entry cannot be treated to be the Income of the firm for the purpose of income tax. It was argued that in view of this decision of Hon'ble M.P. High Court since all the customers has accepted the ownership of the gold ornaments in which chit of their name was attached hence, addition of Rs. 10,61,752/- made to the income of the appellant was against the law." 10. Considering the fact that the assessee has discharged his initial onus by providing the supporting evidence such as confirmation, PAN & Adhar Numbers of all 41 lenders and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
