VISHNU SONI,SHIVPURI vs. ITO, ASHOKNAGAR

O R D E R

PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM:

Vishnu Soni vs. ITO 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and had not filed his return of income for the year under appeal. The AO had that assessee has purchased an immovable property jointly with wife Smt. Radha Soni for Rs.1,10,00,000/- during the previous year relevant to Assessment Year under appeal. Since, the assessee had not filed the return, to examine the source of investment, the case of the assessee was reopened by way of issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 26.06.2019 after getting prior approval from the competent authority. However, during the course of reassessment proceedings, no compliance was made, therefore, the Assessing Officer passed the reassessment order by making addition of Rs.58,98,125/- being 50% in amount of investment made in acquisition of the immovable property (including the stamp charges) and further made addition of Rs.1,87,500/- u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act being the difference between the sale consideration and the circle rate. Against such order, an appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order dated 18.11.2024 partly allowed the appeal of the assessee wherein the addition of Rs. 1,87,500/- made u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) was deleted and the addition of Rs. 58,98,125/- towards unexplained investment in acquisition of property stood confirmed.

1. That as in the case of the Appellant no valid proceedings U/S 147/148 of the Act were initiated thus the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC ought to have quashed/annulled/vitiated the illegal, ab initio void and bad in law exparte assessment U/S 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act dated 17-09-2021.

2. That the addition of Rs.58,98,125 U/S 69 of the Act was being erroneously made by the Ld. AO thus the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred both in law and on facts in sustaining the Vishnu Soni vs. ITO arbitrary and unjust addition of Rs:58,98,125 U/S 69 of the Act that too by making various uncalled for and unwarranted observations completely contrary to facts of the case of the Appellant. Such addition of Rs.58,98,125 is liable to be deleted.

3. That the source of the investment of Rs.58,98,125 (including stamp duty/expenses) made by the Appellant in purchase of his 50% share in the Immovable Property purchased jointly with his wife Mrs. Radha Soni (PAN: CUKPS7099K) being properly verifiable and explained with reference to his disclosed/declared bank account and cash flow chart, thus the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC ought to have deleted the unjust and unlawfully made addition of Rs.58,98,125 U/S 69 of the Act by the Ld. AO. In any view of the case of the Appellant such addition of Rs.58,95,125 be kindly deleted.

4. That the Authorized Representative engaged by the Appellant on whom the Appellant was totally dependent did not properly represent and defend the case of the Appellant before the Authorities Below particularly by not bringing true and correct fact of the case of the Appellant on surface and by not furnishing proper and complete documentary evidences in support of the source of investment of Rs.58,95,125 made by the Appellant in purchase of his 50% share in the Immovable Property purchased jointly with his wife Mrs. Radha Soni (PAN: CUKPS7099K), thus the Appellant was prevented by reasonable cause beyond his control to defend his case properly and judiciously and therefore in view of the principles of natural justice your Honour kindly set aside and restore back the case of the Appellant to Ld. AO for fresh/denovo assessment.

5. That as the Appellant, out of the total investment of Rs.55,00,000 (excluding stamp duty) made in purchase of his 50% share in the Immovable Property jointly purchased with his wife, had paid Rs.10,00,000 on 30-01-2013 relevant to A.Y.2013-14, thus the Authorities Below have erred both in law and on facts is upholding such addition that too by misapplying provisions of section 69 of the Act in the A.Y.2014-15, which is liable to be deleted.

6. That the Authorities Below have erred both in law by misapplying provisions laid down under section 115BBE and thereafter arbitrarily and unlawfully charging increased tax rate of 60% and surcharge @ 25% thereon, in complete disregard to the settled law that such provisions are applicable only from 01-04-2017.

at the time of or before the hearing of the Appeal.”

4. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that assessee along with his spouse Smt. Radha Soni purchased an immovable property and the necessary sources were duly explained before the Ld. CIT(A). It is further submitted by the Ld. AR that in the case of Smt. Radha Soni, the matter has already been set aside to the file of the Ld. AO for verification of the sources Vishnu Soni vs. ITO and, therefore, in the interest of justice and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, he requested that the appeal of the assessee may also be set aside to the file of the AO for necessary verification of the sources of investment in the hands of the assessee.

5. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR vehemently supports the order of the lower authorities and submitted that despite of repeated opportunities by AO and Ld. CIT(A), assessee has failed to explain the sources and, therefore, additions made deserves to be upheld.