KESHAB CHANDRA JAIN,NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD- 2(1), NOIDA

PER B.R.R.KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

Sh. Keshab Chandra Jain Gautambudhnagar for Rs. 52,30,321/- and circle rate of the same was Rs. 71,30,000/- on 29.12.2009. A verification letter dated 15.10.2015 was issued through speed post to verify the source of purchase of the said immovable property. In compliance of this letter, the assessee could not furnish any reply to substantiate source of payment for purchase of the said immovable property including stamp duty during the F.Y. 2008-09. Since, the assessee could not furnish any reply of the same, action under section 147 of the IT Act, 1961 was initiated and accordingly notice u/s 148 was issued on 29.03.2016 for which there was no compliance.

Sh. Keshab Chandra Jain 6. On going to the order of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that this issue has been adjudicated very lucidly. The relevant portion of the order of Ld. CIT(A is as under :-

• Perusal of the copy of the transfer deed relied upon by the appellant shows that the subject property was purchased by Mr. K.C. Jain and not by K.C, Jain, HUF. Under the provisions of the I.T. Act, 1961 an individual and a HUF are different persons altogether. Purchase made by a person being individual will not amount to the purchase made by another person being HUF. While the K.C.Jain HUF can always make payment on behalf of K.C. Jain, individual, the property registered in the name of K .C. Jain individual will not amount to property purchased by the K.C. Jain HUF. The appellant has brought no material on the record to show that the K.C. Jain HUF has advanced money under one arrangement or another to the K.C. Jain individual. The Balance Sheet of the K.C. Jain & Sons HUF as on 31/03/2009 as filed by the appellant show an investment in purchase of immovable property from the transferor builder for Rs, 57,20,031/- and although, the number of the flat is given as T-3-503 which is the same as the number of the flat mentioned in the transfer deed it cannot be accepted that the fixed asset as shown in the balance sheet of K.C. Jain & Sons HUF is the same as the flat purchased by the appellant

Sh. Keshab Chandra Jain without further corroborative evidence which has not been brought by the appellant on the record. • The Balance Sheet of K.C. Jain & Sons HUF however, shows no money advanced to the K.C. Jain individual. No evidence has been led by tie appellant to show that the appellant was filing its return of income and has brought the investment made by the appellant to the notice of the concerned A.O. in the material return of income.

• Further It is seen that the payments made to the transferor builder by the K.C. Jain & Sons HUF were made by raising transfers from the accounts of Smt. Satya Jain, Shri K.C.

Jain, Shri Sarat Jain, Sh. Atul Jain, Sh. Vinayak Jain, Miss Sonai Jain and Sh. Karan Jain. The money borrowed from these individuals merely discloses the money trail and not the capacity to advance money or the genuineness of the transaction. Nothing on the record has been brought by the appellant to show that these individuals from whom the money has been taken by K.C. Jain & Sons HUF was not hit by the mischief of section 68 or section 69Aof I.T Act, 1961.

• In view of the above, and after considering the material brought on record by the appellant it is held that the property under consideration was purchased by K.C. Jain individual and not the K.C. Jain & Sons HUF. There is nothing on record to show that the Sh. Keshab Chandra Jain • In the course of the appellate proceedings the Id. counsel appearing for the appellant requested for the leave of this office under rule 46A of Income Tax Rules 1962 for leading evidence which was not there before the Id. A.O. Perusal of the impugned assessment order shows that the ld. A.O had the complete information about the transaction in so much as there was information before the ld. A.O. about foe correct location of the purchased property as well as the identity of the seller of the property. The ld. A.O. could have easily obtained the copy of the transfer deed either from the office of the Registrar or from the builder concerned. The notice u/s. 148 was issued on 29/03/2016 and the assessment was completed on 28/10/2016. Therefore the matter remained on the board of the ld. A.O. for about seven months. However, it is seen that ld. A.O. appears to have made no attempt to obtain the copy of the transfer deed. The transfer deed was material evidence and should have been taken on record by the ld. A.0. and if the appellant was not responding to the notices sent by the ld. A.O. the ld. A.O. was in no way helpless or decapicitated and had its authority in law to collect the same from other sources where the copies thereof was available. A copy of the said transfer deed has in any case been filed in the appellate proceeding and shows that foe appellant has disclosed its address in the said transfer deed

Sh. Keshab Chandra Jain as K.C, Jain s/o Shri Nanak Chand Jain r/o House No. 246, Sector 15A, Noida, UR. However, perusal of the impugned assessment order shows that the ld. A.O. has corresponded with the appellant at the address of the fiat purchased and no attempt appears to have been made by the ld. A.O. to locate and interact with the appellant at the address given by foe appellant in the transfer deed. There is no denying that being the property of the appellant the newly purchased flat could be an address of the appellant but the fact cannot be ignored that the appellant might not have received the letters and notices sent by the ld. A.O. on that address as he may not be regularly residing.

• In view of these litigating circumstances, foe request of the ld. counsel for the appellant for grant of leave under rule 46A is allowed . The appellant is permitted to lead fresh and additional evidence which was not before the ld. A.O.

• The appellant has claimed that K.C. Jain & Sons, HUF is an existing taxpayer under the PAN AAFHK0553F and has been filing its return of income with the Income Tax Office, Noida and for the A.Y. 2009-10 it has filed its return of income in the office of ITO, Ward-2, Noida on 22/03/2010. A copy of the duly acknowledged copy of the return of income received vide the RR Register docket No.0302019052 is placed on record and seems to be in order.

Sh. Keshab Chandra Jain • The appellant has further claimed that the subject property was purchased out of the funds of the K.C. Jain, HUF and the money trail is duly reflected in the bank account of the payment made by the K.C. Jain & Sons HUF was for the same property which was registered in the name of the K.C. Jain individual. The primary onus cast upon the K.C. Jain and Sons HUF under the provisions of section 66 and section 69A has not been discharged by the K.C. Jain & Sons HUF in the present proceedings said therefore the liability of the K.C.

Jain & Sons HUF under the provisions of section 68 and section 69A of IT. Act 1961 remains against the K.C. Jain & • That being the case it is held that the appellant has not been able to explain the investment made by the appellant in the purchase of the property • The ld. A.O. has committed serious errors in framing the impugned assessment order in this case. Being fully aware that a property valued at Rs. 71,30,000/- was transferred for Rs. 52,30,321/- by the transferor builder, no attempt was made by the ld. A.O. to refer the matter to the concerned A.O. for assumption of jurisdiction under section 50C of I.T.

Act, 1961. As the appellant has paid the stamp duty forRs.

71,30,000/- there remains no dispute that the value of property was accepted between the parties qua the Sh. Keshab Chandra Jain transaction before the stamp duty authorities at Rs.

71,30,000/- and therefore, the same property could not have been claimed to be worth Rs. 52,30,321/- at foe same time before the ld. A.O. being another statutory authority unless explained in the manner provided in the law. Because of the errors committed by the Id. A.O. this issue has not been examined as was necessary under the provisions of section 50C of IT. Act, 1961.

• The ld. A.O. in the impugned assessment order has pleaded helplessness that the appellant has not disclosed its PAN anywhere and therefore the id. A.O. was not able to make further verifications, The Id. A.O. has fallen in serious error as foe PAN Directory is accessible to the ld. A.O. as well as the range incharge and the PAN of foe appellant could have been easily ascertained from the RCC or even the NCC. The ld. AO seems to have made no attempt to ascertain the same.

• The claim of the ld. A.O. that the notice was served through affixture by the ITI at the last known address is also unacceptable as the ld. AO. appears to have made no effort at all to collect the copy of the transfer deed in which the full and correct particulars of the address of foe appellant was disclosed and had the ld. AO. made an effort those details would have become easily available to the Id. A.O. for his further necessary consideration.

Sh. Keshab Chandra Jain • The ld. A.O. seems to have made no enquiry at all and had framed a very bad assessment order in a very bad manner.