9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 1117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esolution Panel and consequently the order of the Assessing Officer is without jurisdiction, is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case to the extent prejudicial to the interests of the appellant and at any rate is opposed to the principles of equity, natural justice and fair play. Addition of Rs. 28,22,380/- u/s. 69 as unexplained investment 2. For that the Dispute Resolution Panel and consequently the Assessing Officer erred in adding a sum of Rs. 28,22,380/- u/s. 69 of the Income Tax Act as unexplained investment of the appellant. 3. For that the Dispute Resolution Panel and consequently the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 69 are not invocable in the facts and circumstances of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sale consideration of Rs. 5,04,10,775/- and the same was found to be undisclosed, thereafter materials and documents as per the requirement of section 148A(b) of the Act were furnished to the assessee on 20.05.2022 as per the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashish Agrawal vs. Union of India (in Civil Appeal No. 3005/2022 vide order dated 04.05.2022). Pursuant to the notice u/s. 148 dated 31.07.2022, after due approval, the assessee filed his return of income in response to the same dated 19.08.2022, declaring total income at Rs. 19,15,010/-. 4. The learned Assessing Officer (ld. A.O. for short) observed that the assessee has purchased an immovable property at Flat No. 2801, 28th Floor, Crescent Bay, Parel, Mumbai-400 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment order has erroneously made an addition of Rs. 3,98,62,195/- instead of Rs. 3,89,62,195/-, which is an arithmetic error. The ld. AR further contended that the assessee had substantiated the source of Rs. 1,14,48,580/- which was the part of the sale consideration that was paid during the year under consideration and the same was also acknowledged by the ld. A.O. during the assessment proceeding. The ld. AR further stated that the assessee has substantiated the entire sale consideration which was out of the salary earned by the assessee along with interest income and provident fund settlement from previous employment and transferred from his NRE and NRO account. The ld. AR prayed that the impugned addition be deleted. 8. The learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o furnished the bank statements of these payments and the employer's return issued by Capula Investment Management Asia Ltd. for F.Y. 2014-15 where it was observed that the assessee has received a salary of HKD 10,40,909/- which equals to Rs. 81,81,545/- (exchange rate of 1 HKD = INR 7.87 in 2014). The ld. A.O. made an addition on the balance amount of Rs. 3,98,62,195/- as 'unexplained investment'. The assessee contends that even otherwise there was a arithmetical error in computing the balance payment, which would be Rs. 3,89,62,195/- (difference of Rs. 9 lacs). The assessee in his objection filed before the Hon'ble DRP had furnished the complete details of the total sale consideration, including those which were paid during A.Ys. 2013-14, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,06,782 29.06.2015 29,04,154 03.05.2019 6,98,680 22.08.2015 28,60,152 06.04.2016 87,04,334 Total 3,45,20,241 Total 1,06,74,488 Total 98,74,009 Grand Total - 5,50,68,738* * The above payment to the tune of Rs. 5,50,68,738/- includes the actual purchase consideration of Rs. 5,04,10,775/- and also payments towards other charges such as charges towards water, electricity, drainage, sewerage connection, etc. club house charges etc. stamp duty and registration charges and interest on delayed payment of consideration. In the above tabular column, it is observed that all these details were furnished before the Hon'ble DRP, which was tabulated at pg. no. 7 of the Hon'ble DRP's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
