BRIJWASI REAL ESTATE,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3)(1), MATHURA

From the case records, it emerges that the case of the assessee was reopened by issue of notice u/s 148 on 31-03-2018 pursuant to receipt of certain information from investigation wing. It was alleged that income of Rs.544.47 Lacs escaped assessment. The same represent investment in two immoveable properties by the firm. The assessee stated that the properties were purchased out of partners’ capital. The Ld. AO noted that as on 31-03-2011, the partners’ capital was Rs.421.15 Lacs and unsecured loans were Rs.296.10 Lacs. The closing stock was shown for Rs.568.39 Lacs. The Ld. AO finally made addition u/s 68 for Rs.296.10 Lacs with respect to unsecured loans on the allegation that the nature and source thereof could not be proved by the assessee.

During first appeal, the assessee stated that original return of income was filed furnishing full financial statements and the same was proceeded u/s 143(1). During assessment proceedings, the assessee furnished documents with regards to contributions received from the partners in order to explain the sources of funds which were used for making investment in lands. The assessee also questioned the jurisdiction of Ld. AO by citing various judicial pronouncements.

The Ld. CIT(A), in para 7.3, rejected legal ground by observing that information was received from investigation wing that the assessee had purchased immoveable properties and the source of purchases required investigation. The same was sufficient enough to form belief of escapement of income. However, on merits, Ld. CIT(A) concurred that no independent enquiries were conducted by Ld. AO and the assessee was not asked to submit any details with regard to unsecured loans. Accordingly, the impugned addition was deleted. However, the Ld. CIT(A) made a typographical error and deleted the addition of Rs.269.10 Lacs as against addition of Rs.296.10 Lacs as made by Ld. AO. The same is the very grievance of the assessee. The Ld. AR has stated that the assessee preferred rectification application which is pending since a long time and hence, this appeal.

Considering the facts of the case, it is quite clear that there is mere typographical error in the impugned order. The Ld. AO had made addition of unsecured loans for Rs.296.10 Lacs. The same had inadvertently been mentioned as Rs.269.10 Lacs in the impugned order. Therefore, we correct the same and direct Ld. AO to delete the entire impugned adition of Rs.296.10 Lacs.

The appeal stand allowed. Order pronounced u/r 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.