RAGHURAJ SINGH,SAMBHAL vs. ITO WARD 1(5), SAMBHAL

It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee’s foremost substantive ground seeks to reverse both the lower authorities making section 56(vii)(b) r.w.s. 56(2)(x) addition of Rs.14,90,500/-, made in assessment order dated 26.11.2019 and upheld in the lower authorities discussion.

The tribunal hereby notices in this back drop that both the learned lower authorities nowhere record any specific findings that assessee’s immovable property purchased herein is a capital asset as per section 56(vii)(b) Explanation incorporated in the Act. I accordingly see no merit in Revenue’s vehement contentions to delete the impugned addition in very terms.

Next comes the second issue between the parties wherein both the learned lower authorities have made section 69A unexplained investment addition of Rs.14,41850/- in the lower proceedings. 6. The Revenue could hardly dispute that possibility of the assessee and his family’s past savings in light of his socio economic status could not be altogether ruled out. He has also failed to plead and prove all the relevant facts before the learned lower authorities as well. It is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs.4 lacs only would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent