2024 (2) TMI 843

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Respondent. In our view, it is an unacceptable order. 3. Petitioner is a senior citizen aged 75 years. During the year under consideration, i.e., Assessment Year 2015-2016, for which Petitioner has not filed return of income since there was no taxable income, Petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- in two tranches, i.e., Rs. 5,00,000/- on 28th February 2015 and another Rs. 5,00,000/- on 2nd March 2015 to one M/s. Lucina Land Development Limited ("Lucina") against allotment of a flat being Flat No. 5C-2061, Rose in the joint name of Petitioner and her grand-daughter Divya. 4. It is Petitioner's case that this amount as well as the amounts paid earlier to Lucina came out of redemption of Fixed Deposits, Loans from the daughter and son-in-l....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....issued. 6. Petitioner replied vide a letter dated 13th June 2022, which has been relied upon in the affidavit-in-reply. It is stated in the reply that only Rs. 28,04,337/- has been paid to Lucina of which Rs. 10,00,000/- were only paid during the relevant assessment year and the balance was still payable and Petitioner is not filing return of income as her income was below taxable limits. It is also stated in the reply that the source of payment for the flat is from redemption of Fixed Deposits, Loans from the daughter and son-in-law. The total payments made for the flat also is tabulated in the reply. Further, there is a categorical denial that any amount has been paid in cash to the builder in addition to the basic price of the flat. A f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n support of her claim. The only basis on which an allegation is made that Petitioner has paid cash is a statement of somebody from Lucina that it received cash from Petitioner. Moreover, there is nothing on record to indicate that Petitioner has paid the entire amount of Rs. 44,03,000/-. Further, in the order, it is stated that the income of source for purchase of immovable property of Rs. 64,94,200/- remained unexplained and therefore, it would fall within the meaning of "assets" as per Explanation-1 of Section 149 of the Act. There is no explanation as to when it is the AO's case that the market value of the flat itself was only Rs. 51,55,000/-, how could the property be valued at Rs. 64,94,200/-. This has been done, in our view, simply ....