9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal. 2. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee-individual filed his return of income of AY 2012-13 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,740/-. The case was selected under scrutiny and notices u/s 143(2)/142(1) were issued which remained uncomplied. Ultimately, the AO made assessment to the best of his judgement u/s 144 after making two additions, namely (i) addition of Rs. 1,20,47,000/- u/s 69 on account of unexplained investment in a residential house at HIG-HA-68, NRI Colony, Lake View, Koh-e-fiza, Bhopal, and (ii) denial of exemption of Rs. 38,41,924/- claimed by assessee u/s 54/54F against long-term capital gain from sale of another property at Plot No. 1, MP Housing Board, Lake View Colony, Koh-e-fiz ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suming valid jurisdiction, is void ab initio, also bad in law, and the said assessment order passed u/s 144 may very kindly be quashed. 2. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming an addition of Rs. 70,13,980/- u/s 69 of the I.T. Act, out of a total investment of Rs. 1,30,13,980/- in the purchase of new house property. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the said addition of Rs. 70,13,980/- u/s 69 is patently wrong and not based on facts and the same may very kindly be deleted.' 5. Ground No. 1 challenges the validity of assessment-order passed by AO on account of jurisdictional defect. It is submission of assessee that the notice dated 12.08.2023 u/s 143(2) for undertaking case under scrutiny was issued by ITO-2(2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of Rs. 70,13,980/- by passing following order: '3.2.2 I have considered the acts of the case, plea raised by the appellant, findings of the ld. Assessing Officer, remand report and rejoinder thereupon made during appellate proceedings. I find that this ground of appeal relates to the addition of Rs. 1,20,47,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69 of the I.T Act on account of the appellant's failure to explain the source of the investment that was made by him for the purchase of his residential house at HIG-HA-68, NRI Colony, Lake View, Koh-E-Fiza, Bhopal on 19/10/2011. During the appellate proceedings an enhancement notice u/s 251(2) was served on the appellant as it came to the light that the residential house had been purchased ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to discharge his onus cast upon him by section 69. As the appellant has failed to do so, his explanation for the source of funds is rejected. It is also observed that an amount of Rs. 23 lacs has been extended by Mrs. Shama Mohammad, W/o Sh. Shoukat Mohammad Khan directly towards the payment of the purchase price of the house and towards the stamp duty payable. Again, the appellant has not been able to establish that Ms. Shama Mohammad has the creditworthiness to extend an amount of Rs. 23 Lacs towards the purchase of the house. The appellant was not able to furnish either her bank statement or her Income Tax Return. However, the appellant was in possession of funds to the tune of Rs. 60 lacs which accrued to him out of the sale of his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... through RTGS are reflected. During first-appeal, the assessee filed an affidavit dated 30.12.2021 of Mr. Zafar to CIT(A) on stamp paper of Rs. 100/- duly notarized, copy placed at Page No. 73 of Paper-Book. In this affidavit, Mr. Zafar has made clear-cut averments that (i) the assessee is his real young brother; that his PAN is ABLPK3564B; (ii) that he has given loans of Rs. 45,00,000/- on 03.10.2011 and Rs. 35,00,000/- on 18.10.2011; (iii) that the loans were given through RTGS from his A/c No. 30443188393 with State Bank of India, Sultania Road branch; (iv) that the amounts were advanced to assessee for purchase of property at HIG-HA-68, NRI Colony, Lake View, Koh-e-fiza, Bhopal; and (v) that the amounts were advanced due to nature love a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view is warranted. (ii) Direct payment of Rs. 23 lacs by Mrs. Shama Mohd: We find that Mrs. Shama Mohd. is wife of assessee. The impugned property was purchased jointly by assessee and Mrs. Shama Mohd., the name of both owners are clearly mentioned as purchasers in the registered-deed placed in Paper-Book at Pages 48 to 71. Mrs. Shama Mohd. made payment of Rs. 15,00,000/- to the seller of property and payment of Rs. 8,00,000/- towards stamps charges. During first-appeal, the assessee filed an affidavit dated 30.12.2021 of Mrs. Shama Mohd. to CIT(A) on stamp paper of Rs. 100/- duly notarized, copy placed at Page No. 75 of Paper-Book. In this affidavit, Mrs. Shama Mohd. has made clear-cut averments that (i) the assessee is her husband; ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
