YASMIN ARA, L/H MD.AYAZ,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, 25(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The only issue pressed by the assessee during the course of hearing is against the confirmation of addition by ld. CIT (A) of ₹38,70,000/- u/s 69 of the Act and ₹71,79,825/- u/s 56(2)(vii) of the Act, which is made by the ld. AO by ignoring the facts that the payment for the impugned property was made in the preceding/earlier assessment year.

The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 27.09.2014, declaring the total income of ₹4,82,620/-. The ld. AO on

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee expired on 15.08.2020 and the said fact was not brought to the notice of the ld. Assessing Officer. Ultimately, the assessment was framed in the name of dead person. Similarly, in the appellate proceedings no one attended the proceeding and the ld. CIT (A) upheld the order of ld. AO. We observe from the record before us that the impugned property for which the addition was made in the hands of the assessee was bought by the assessee in ownership with his wife vide indenture dated 11th April, 2013 and the schedule of payments made for the said property is Sl Cheque Date Bank Amount No. Number (₹) 1. 042549 05.12.11 Bank of India 9,67,500 2. 081349 05.12.11 Bank of India 9,67,500 3. 042550 07.12.11 Bank of India 9,67,500 4. 081350 07.12.11 Bank of India 9,67,500 5. 042551 08.12.11 Bank of India 9,67,500 6. 081351 08.12.11 Bank of India 9,67,500 7. 042552 09.12.11 Bank of India 9,67,500 8. 01352 09.12.11 Bank of India 9,67,500 77,40,000 06. We observe from the said schedule of payments that all the payments aggregating to ₹77,40,000/- were made to the seller in A.Y. 2012-13 and not during the impugned assessment year i.e. 2014-15. Therefore, it is apparent that the property was purchased in the earlier assessment year for which the consideration was also fully discharged as stated hereinabove in the schedule of payments and it is only conveyance deed which is registered during the year in favour of the assessee and his wife. We note that the issue was accepted by the revenue in the case of assessee’s husband. After perusing the facts of the instant case before us in the light of the various evidences filed in the paper book, we are of the considered view that the additions were wrongly made by the AO on the wrong understanding of the facts that the property was purchased during the instant financial year, whereas as a matter of fact the property was purchased in the earlier assessment year and the payments were also made in the earlier assessment year . We note that assessee has duly disclosed all these payments made for the property in the return of income filed and also that all these payments were made from the banks of the assessee. Before parting we would like to state that

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.