PAZHANIVEL THANGARASU,CUDDALORE vs. ITO, WARD-1,, CUDDALORE

For that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case and prejudicial to the interest of the appellant and at any rate is opposed to the principles of equity, natural justice and fair play.

For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the order of the Assessing Officer is without juri iction.

For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the order of reassessment passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 is barred by limitation.

For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the reassessment has been completed without complying with the statutory requirements of law.

For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 69A are not invocable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the explanation along with evidences furnished by the appellant regarding the source of cash deposit to the tune of Rs.40,00,250/-.

For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to consider the sale agreement in respect of sale of immovable property and also failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant had adopted the value of sale consideration reflected in the sale agreement for the purposes of computing Long Term Capital Gains as against the lower value reflected in the sale deed.

For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in not considering the Long Term Capital Gains admitted by the appellant arising on account of sale of immovable property and the consequent exemption claimed u/s.54F of the Income Tax Act. 11.For that the the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in making the above addition on mere conjectures, surmises and suspicions.

For that the appellant objects to the levy of interest u/s.234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The assessee is an individual and is assessed to tax by the National e-Assessment Centre. It is stated in the assessment order that as per AIR information available with the Department, the assessee had made a cash deposit of Rs.40,00,750/- into his savings bank account maintained with the Corporation Bank during the AY 2012-13. Based on the above information, the AO had reasons to believe that income to the extent of Rs.40,00,750/- has escaped assessment for the AY 2012-13 and therefore, initiated reassessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’). In response to notice u/s.148 of the Act, the assessee filed return of income on 10.04.2019 admitting total income of Rs.99,682/- including the Long Term Capital Gains to the tune of Rs.27,682/-. During the re-assessment proceedings, the assessee explained that the source of cash deposit was from sale of :-4-: ITA. No:2633/CHNY/2024

You have submitted that an immovable property was sold by you at the consideration of Rs. 34,90,060/- but from the sale deed dated 14.03.2012, it is clear that it was transferred at Rs. 3,25,000/- and stamp duty paid thereon.

Further you have submitted an agreement dated 06.12. 2011, by which you have received Rs. 7,00,000/- but the said amount and agreement is not mentioned in the sale deed dated 14.03.2012. The furnished agreement is not registered agreement, it is just notary attested. Therefore, the genuineness of the agreement is proven when it is mentioned in the sale deed and all the terms are followed.

You are required to show cause as to why the total amount of Rs. 3675250/-(4000250-325000) be not added to the total income of the A. Y. 2012-13 under section 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961 on account of unexplained money in the bank account."

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). On perusal of the documents and details furnished by the assessee, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by the AO by holding as under:- “10.1 These grounds of appeal are in regard to the addition made by the AO of Rs.36,75,250/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the IT Act being the cash deposit in the bank account. The appellant has again claimed that the said cash was out of the sale consideration received on sale of immovable property. The appellant has again submitted that even though the sale value is shown at Rs.3,25,000/- in sale deed dated 14.03.2012, however the same was actually sold at Rs.34,09,060/- vide agreement dated 34,90,060/-. The same details were provided before the AO as well.

2 Both the documents have been perused carefully. As noticed from the agreement, the document is not registered but only notarized. Whereas for the same property, the appellant has submitted the sale deed claiming to be the sale consideration of Rs.3,25,000/-. The appellant has failed to submit any concrete clarification for the difference amount in the sale consideration as per the sale deed and self claimed agreement (huge difference as the sale value as per the agreement is more than 10 times as of sale deed). In the case of such doubts, reliance can only he made upon the document which carries the genuineness. In the instant case, only sale deed has been registered with the Sub