9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 60 - AT - Income TaxComputation of capital gains - FMV determination - SRO value as per section 50C should be adopted while computing the capital gains - HELD THAT - AO has merely relied on the loose sheets seized during the search operations. AO also failed to record any corroborative evidences in his findings with respect to the additions made by him. The fact that the advance received by the assessee is mentioned in the sale deed entered into by the assessee was ignored by the Ld. AO. AO has merely relied on the date of registration of sale deed while making the addition u/s. 50C of the Act which was registered during December, 2016 and January, 2017. Since the agreement to sell has been entered into as early as March 2016, and the consideration agreed and advance of Rs. 80,00,000/- has been received by the assessee, the delay in registering the sale deed, and in the mean time increase in the value for the purposes of Section 50C, shall not alter the agreed consideration. CIT(A) has rightly considered the advances received by the assessee during March 2016 for the sale of 4 plots and accordingly has directed the Ld. AO to adopt the Fair Market Value as on the date of the agreement between the assessee and the vendees. We are therefore in concurrence with the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) and find that no interference is required in the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and this ground no.2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. CIT(A) violated the provisions of Rule 46A by not providing an opportunity to the Ld. AO to examine the fresh evidence - HELD THAT - CIT(A) in his order has observed that the advance amount was recorded in the sale deeds which was available before the Ld. AO at the time of assessment proceedings. In the absence of any additional evidence filed before the Ld. CIT(A), we find that there is no requirement of complying with the provisions of Rule 46A by the Ld. CIT (A) and hence we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has acted within his powers. Addition towards alleged on-money - AO has relied on the loose sheets as per the screen shot available - HELD THAT - We find that the loose sheets, extracted as screen shot in the Ld. AO s order, are undated and no details like date of payment or to whom the amount was paid is not mentioned in the loose sheets. Further, the sale deeds executed by the assessee clearly mentions the consideration received and admitted by the assessee while filing the return of income. - We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has relied on the various judicial pronouncements and has deleted the addition made by the Ld. AO in the absence of any corroborative evidence brought in by the Ld. AO. We therefore are of the view that no interference is required in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this ground. Addition as Black Money received - AO has relied on the dumb document while making additions - HELD THAT - CIT(A) again relying on the jurisdictional Bench in the case of Badam Bhogalinga Swamy Others 2021 (6) TMI 247 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM has correctly deleted the addition and hence we find no reason to interfere in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this ground. Revenue appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Addition under Section 50C of the Income Tax Act. 3. Addition of alleged on-money based on seized documents. 4. Addition of black money related to sale of flat. Summary: Issue 1: Non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) The assessee argued that the assessment was completed without issuing a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal, but the Tribunal found this issue moot as the appeal was dismissed on merits. Issue 2: Addition under Section 50C The Revenue contended that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the SRO value as per Section 50C during the registration of sale deeds. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the agreement to sell and advance receipt were dated March 2016, and the value as per Section 50C at that time should be considered. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's ground, agreeing with the Ld. CIT(A) that the Fair Market Value at the time of the agreement should be adopted. Issue 3: Addition of alleged on-money The Revenue argued that the Ld. AO rightly added Rs. 1,62,60,700/- as on-money based on loose sheets seized during the search. The Tribunal found the loose sheets to be undated and lacking details, making them unreliable. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, citing the absence of corroborative evidence. Issue 4: Addition of black money related to sale of flat The Ld. AO added Rs. 31,40,000/- as black money received from the sale of a flat based on seized documents. The Tribunal dismissed this ground, referring to its earlier decision on the unreliability of the seized documents and agreeing with the Ld. CIT(A) that the addition was unwarranted. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal in its entirety and found the Cross Objections by the assessee to be infructuous. The decision of the Ld. CIT(A) was upheld on all grounds.
|
