9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Appeal against CIT(A) order for A.Y. 2007-08, confirmation of addition by AO, framing of assessment u/s 144, short term gain on property plot, lack of proof of cost of improvement.
Confirmation of addition by AO: The appeal challenged the addition made by the AO without examining the legality of the assessment, contending that the assessment was bad in law due to non-compliance with sec. 144(1). The appellant argued that the assessment order was passed in haste without providing adequate opportunity for the appellant to present their case and without considering the available material on record. The order was passed ex-parte u/s 144, and the appellant claimed that both the AO and CIT(A) did not provide sufficient hearing opportunities, leading to an unjust assessment. Short term gain on property plot: The appellant disputed the addition of a short term gain on a property plot, emphasizing that one plot was transferred through a registered Sale Deed while the other was merely an agreement for buying with an endorsement to a third party. The appellant argued that the AO's observations were legally flawed. Additionally, the appellant contested the addition based on the lack of proof of cost of improvement for the respective plots, asserting that no evidence was filed in connection with the cost of improvement. Restoration of appeal: After hearing both parties, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal to the AO for denovo assessment. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had not been given adequate hearing opportunities before the AO or CIT(A), leading to the decision to direct the AO to conduct a denovo assessment with proper hearing for the appellant. The Tribunal refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the challenged additions, as they would be reconsidered during the denovo assessment process. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the order was pronounced in open court on a specified date.
|
