HAMID KADEER SHAIKH,,NANDURBAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER , WARD -3,, DHULE

आदेश / ORDER

PER R.S.SYAL, VP :

This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order passed by the CIT(A)-1, Nashik on 17-05-2017 in relation to the assessment year 2013-14.

2 ITA No.1738/PUN/2017 Hamid Kadeer Shaikh

Petition (TEP) was received at the Income-tax Office levelling

certain allegations against the assessee. Notice u/s.148 was

issued requesting the assessee to file his return. A return was

filed. During the course of assessment proceedings, valuation

of the assessee’s immovable property, i.e. residential house

building at Navapur, was referred to the Valuation Officer,

Thane, requesting him to determine its fair market value. The

assessee filed a letter with the affidavit made by Mr. Rauf

Hamid Shaikh, Navapur and Mr. Amin Hamid Shaikh,

Navapur stating that the sons constructed first and second

floors of the building at Navapur. In the absence of the

assessee submitting any proof regarding construction

expenses, bills, vouchers etc., in the name of the assessee or

his sons, the AO opined that the actual landholder was the

assessee and not his sons and the entire investment was made

by the assessee alone. Since the valuation report was not

received and the assessment was getting time barred, the AO

finalised the assessment by noticing that the assessee did not

have any explanation to offer regarding investment in the

construction of residential double-storied building. On the

3 ITA No.1738/PUN/2017 Hamid Kadeer Shaikh

basis of certain certificate issued by Sunil V. Patil, Plan

Associates, Navapur, regarding cost of construction of ground

floor at Rs.4,82,625/-, the AO held that the assessee made

equal investment for the first and second floors also at

Rs.4,82,625/- each. That is how, he made an addition of

Rs.14,47,875/-, which came to be approved in the first appeal.

material on record, it is noticed that the assessee claimed to

have obtained bank loan of Rs.2.50 lakh. However, a copy of

bank account was not produced before the AO. The assessee

further made out a case that his sons contributed a sum of

Rs.5,10,000/- each for construction of first and second floors

respectively at Navapur building. The ld. AR submitted that

both his sons filed returns of income for the A.Y. 2014-15

before the AO issued notice u/s.148 of the Act. This was

countered by the ld. DR who submitted that Anti Corruption

Branch (ACB) had taken action against the assessee. It was

only pursuant to such action that the assessee’s sons proceeded

to file the returns, declaring investment in construction with a

view to give source for construction of the property. The ld.

4 ITA No.1738/PUN/2017 Hamid Kadeer Shaikh

AR submitted that ACB took action against the assessee but

no conviction was done by any Court pursuant to that and the

proceedings have been concluded. On a specific query, he

failed to point out any material to substantiate his submission.

In the given facts and circumstances, it is found that there are

several virgin issues, as highlighted above, which have not

been discussed in the assessment order. In my considered

opinion, the ends of justice would meet adequately if the

impugned order is set-aside and the matter is restored to the

file of AO. I order accordingly and direct him to decide the

issue afresh. Needless to say, the assessee will be given

reasonable opportunity of hearing. The assessee will also be at liberty to lead any fresh evidence to strengthen his claim in the de novo proceedings.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 20th February, 2019. Sd/- (R.S.SYAL) उपा�य� उपा�य�/ VICE PRESIDENT उपा�य� उपा�य�

पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 20th February, 2019 सतीश

5 ITA No.1738/PUN/2017 Hamid Kadeer Shaikh

आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order is forwarded to : क� क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत आदेश आदेश आदेश अपीलाथ� / The Appellant; 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent; 2. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / 3. The CIT (Appeals)-1, Nashik. 4. The Pr. CIT-1,Nashik िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे “SMC” / 5. DR ‘SMC’, ITAT, Pune; गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6. // True copy // आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार

// True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

Date 1. Draft dictated on 19-02-2019 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 20-02-2019 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed JM before the second member 4. Draft discussed/approved JM by Second Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to Sr.PS the Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order. *