SUDIP DILIP SANKHE,PALGHAR vs. WARD 42(1)(5), MUMBAI, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, MUMBAI

In the instant case, on verification of the AIR information received under NMS Cycle-2, the Assessing Officer noticed that, during F.Y. 2010-11, the Assessee had purchased an immovable property for a consideration of ₹30,00,000/- and had also received commission/brokerage income of ₹9,00,000/-. However, the

Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid information, the Assessing Officer reopened the case of the Assessee under section 147 of the Act, by issuing a notice dated 28.03.2018 under section 148 of the Act. Though the notice under section 148 of the Act and other statutory notices were issued and served upon the Assessee through affixture, however, the Assessee made no compliance in response thereto. Therefore, in the absence of any explanation or supporting material from the Assessee, the Assessing Officer ultimately made additions of ₹30,00,000/- and ₹9,00,000/-, being unexplained investment in the purchase of the immovable property and unexplained commission/brokerage income, respectively, under sections 69 and 69A of the Act, vide assessment order dated 16.12.2018 passed under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act.

Thus, the Assessee, being aggrieved, preferred the first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner.

The Assessee, before the Ld. Commissioner, claimed that, vide purchase deed dated 26.10.2010, the property under consideration was purchased for a total consideration of ₹30,00,000/- by six co- owners, wherein the Assessee had a one-third share. Accordingly, the Assessee claimed to have paid an amount of ₹10,50,210/-, including stamp duty and registration charges, through banking channels.

The Ld. Commissioner, though considered the aforesaid claim of the Assessee, as well as the details of payments, including the cheque numbers furnished by him, however, did not find the

Thus, the Ld. Commissioner ultimately rejected the appeal filed by the Assessee and affirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer.

We have heard the parties and considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the Assessee had furnished certain documents, such as details of cheque payments, the purchase deed, and other particulars, in order to substantiate his explanation. However, it is also a fact that the Assessee failed to furnish the relevant documents pertaining to the other co-owners, or any substantive material establishing their respective contributions towards the purchase consideration.

Before us, the Assessee has also placed on record a copy of his financial statements, bank statement, purchase agreement, Form No. 26AS, and the submissions filed before the Ld. Commissioner. Though the Ld. Commissioner considered the documents furnished by the Assessee, however, the claim was rejected mainly on the ground that the Assessee had failed to furnish the requisite details and supporting documents relating to the other co-owners.

We also direct the Assessee to furnish all the relevant documents pertaining to himself, as well as the other co-owners of the property, and to substantiate the genuineness of his claim and the source of the respective contributions. We clarify that, in the event of any further default or non-compliance, the Assessee shall not be entitled to claim any leniency.

Thus, the case is accordingly remanded to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, in the aforesaid terms.

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.