9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1037X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erification is illegal, invalid and void ab initio and merits quashing 3. That the AO grossly erred in law by not providing reasons for reopening to the assessee along with the notice u/s 148 or within a reasonable period of time as held by various courts and tribunals, thereby rendering the re-assessment proceedings to be illegal and invalid. That the DRP has grossly erred in not adjudicating on said issue. 4. That the AO and DRP have grossly erred in ignoring the fact that reasons recorded for reopening assessment and approval allegedly obtained were not electronically dated or digitally signed, and thus the authenticity, veracity and existence of said reasons and approval cannot be ascertained, given the inordinate delays in providing reasons to the appellant. That the DRP has grossly erred in not adjudicating on said issue and the AO has grossly erred in denying any information in this regard to the appellant. 5. That the AO and DRP have grossly erred in making an addition u/s 69 in the hands of the appellant by doubting the source of funds used for investment, whereas the said source of funds were evidently and apparently received in a previous year and not in the subjec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs u/s 270A and 271F of the Act on the appellant. 3. Since, all these grounds are interrelated these are taken up together. 4. During reassessment proceedings the assessee was asked to furnish details immovable property purchased along with source of fund utilized to be supported by documentary evidence including the copy of bank statement. In response, the assessee submitted that he purchased two immovable properties during FY 2016-17 and the source of fund was acquisition of gift received by the assessee from his relative, Mother's brother. 5. The assessee submitted copies of the purchase deeds, the bank account statement of Standard Chartered Bank and Yes Bank. 6. The AO also required the assessee to establish relation between the donor and the assessee with documentary evidence. After considering the response of the assessee the AO observed in para 4 of as under: "4. During the assessment proceedings the assessee has not submitted any gift deed with respect to fund utilized for acquisition of properties. The undated letter of Mrs. Santosh Kataria is not specifying and relationship between assessee's mother and donor. Further, undated affidavit without notarized or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ank statement of Mr. Katarin Raghuvinder Kumar and /or Kataria Shital and further mentioned that fund was transferred on 21.12.2015. On perusal of the bank statement, it is observed that there are 03 debit transactions of USD 1000042.26, 26118.26 and 1055692.26 on 21.12.2015. (2) Documentary evidences to substantiate relationship - On erusal of the copy of passport of Late Smt. Santosh Kataria, it is found that name of the husband is "SHAM SUNDER KATARIA". However, she herself has mentioned in the affidavit on plain paper dated nil submitted during assessment proceedings that name her husband is Late Sh. Shyam Sunder Kataria. Further, or perusal of the Gift deed dated 14.03.2019 executed by Mr. Raguvinder Kumar Kataria in favour o Mrs. Sumi Malik, Wo Mr. Harish Malik, it is mentioned that Mr. Raghuvinder Kataria is son c Late Sh. S.S. Kataria. However, in the PAN Card of the Raguvinder Kumar Kataria, the Father' name is Shyant Sunder Kataria." 10. Before the ld. DRP the assessee submitted his rejoinder which is as under: "Vide para 9(1) the AO has commented that there are 03 debit transactions of USD 1000042.26, 26118.26 and 1055692.26 appearing in the bank account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ddition made by the AO was non furnishing of requisite document during the assessment proceedings, the panel, in the interest of natural justice and with the objective to arrive at true determination of taxable income of the assessee, considers it appropriate to take the additional evidence filed by the assessee on record. It was held that the AO has observed that in the bank statement of Mr. Katarin Raghuvinder Kumar and /or Kataria Shital and further mentioned that fund was transferred on 21.12.2015. On perusal of the bank statement, it is observed that there were debit transactions of USD 1000042.26, 26118.26 and 1055692.26 was found on 21.12.2015. No adverse conclusion has been made or any infirmity pointed out by the AO on this document. As regards the evidence filed by the assessee to substantiate relationship the AO has observed that as per copy or passport of Late Smt. Santosh Kataria, name of the husband is "SHAM SUNDER KATARIA". However, she herself has mentioned in the affidavit on plain paper dated nil submitted during assessment proceedings that name her husband is Late Sh. Shyam Sunder Kataria. Further, on perusal of the Gift deed dated 14.03.2019 executed by Mr. Ragu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
