TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 843X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order, it is stated that the income of source for purchase of immovable property 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 to get over the fetters placed u/s 149(1)(b) of the Act. AO has not explained any of these factors. Even in the assessment order, it is stated therefore, during the assessment proceedings, the source of payments alongwith on-money payment towards the purchase of flat have been asked to assessee. However, assessee has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... morning and she may have to file a rejoinder. 2. Having considered the petition, we do not think there is any need to file a rejoinder. Petition can be disposed at this stage because we are not at all satisfied with the order passed by 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-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... received cash from different customers, which included Petitioner. It is also alleged that Lucina has admitted having received a sum of Rs. 20,91,200/- from Petitioner. Based on this information, the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act has been 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 Deposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ution of India. 10. In the order dated 23rd July 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, it records Petitioner has denied having paid any cash to Lucina. The Assessing Officer ( AO ) says Petitioner, however, did not submit any documentary evidence in 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 p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
