9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment year under dispute, the assessee filed his return of income on 09.12.2016, declaring total income of Rs. 10,43,620/-. Assessee's case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the following issues: i. Whether unsecured loans are genuine and from disclosed sources ii. Whether investment and income relating to property were duly disclosed. 3. In course of assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer (AO), while verifying the return of income and financial statements, noticed that as against the closing balance of unsecured loan of Rs. 4,62,00,000/- in A.Y. 2014-15, the quantum of unsecured loan in the impugned assessment year has increased to Rs. 5,91,00,000/-. Thus, the A.O. was of the view that in the assessment year under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e amount was not paid as the project got held up due to financial irregularities of the developer HDIL, which ultimately was closed down due to enquiry being initiated by various Government Agencies. The assessee explained that the purchase consideration of the properties, aggregating to Rs. 1,48,00,000/- was shown on asset side of the balance sheet. Whereas, the increase of Rs. 1,29,00,000/- in the liability side was on account of payment of Rs. 10 lacs towards purchase of the properties and repayment of Rs. 9 lacs to another individual. Thus, it was submitted by the assessee that the increase of Rs. 1,29,00,000/- in unsecured loan actually does not represent any fresh loan taken by the assessee, but is a mere book entry on account of purc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has not availed any fresh loan, the first appellate authority deleted the addition made u/s. 68 of the Act. 7. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. On perusal of the balance sheet of the assessee as on 31.03.2015 it is revealed that on the asset side, the assessee has shown the purchase consideration of two immovable properties at Kanakia Paris, BKC. There is a clear factual finding by first appellate authority that out of the said purchase consideration, the assessee has paid an amount of Rs. 10 lacs which is also reflected in the books of the assessee. Thus, the facts on record reveal that no fresh loan aggregating to Rs. 1.29 lacs was taken during the year under consideration. In fact, nei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation, why the investment should not be added u/s. 69 of the Act. Since, the assessee did not comply with the query made, the A.O. while completing the assessment u/s. 144 of the Act added back the amount of Rs. 3,20,44,500/- as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. In course of proceedings before the first appellate authority, the assessee explained the reasons for which he could not participate in the proceedings before A.O. and furnished additional evidences contesting the addition. The first appellate authority admitted the additional evidences and forwarded them to the A.O. for necessary enquiry and their acceptability. In pursuance to the directions of the first appellate authority, the A.O. examined the additional evidences furn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ials available on record. Undisputedly, assessment for the assessment year was completely ex parte to the best of judgment of A.O. u/s. 144 of the Act. Therefore, the assessee did not get any opportunity to meet the allegation of the A.O. regarding purchase of immovable properties during the assessment proceedings. However, facts and materials on record reveal that in course of first appellate proceeding, the assessee did produce additional evidences including agreement to sale with HDIL, regarding purchase of four immovable properties, receipts, issued by HDIL, acknowledging initial payment made by the assessee towards purchase of the property, bank statements, etc. On perusal of the agreement to sale with HDIL, which are reproduced in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 3,20,44,500/- was never paid to HDIL during the year under consideration, is substantiated through supporting evidence. The A.O. has failed to bring on record any evidence to demonstrate that in addition to the initial payment made by the assessee in the assessment year 2014-15, any further payment was made towards the purchase of the properties. The payments to be made is based on various stages of the construction and the construction itself did not proceeded and ultimately the builder/developers closed down its business. There is no reason why the assessee would have made the payment. Thus, there being no material on record to establish that the assessee had made the payment of Rs. 3,20,44,500/-, we do not find any reason to interfe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
