9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 1340 - AT - Income TaxAddition of capital gain - assessee failed to furnish the evidence during the assessment and remand proceeding also - HELD THAT - The facts that the AO has verified indexed cost of acquisition and cost of improvement claimed by the assessee to be correct as per the records of the assessee. This fact is not rebutted by the Revenue by placing any contrary material. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere in the findings of Ld.CIT(A), the same is hereby, affirmed. Hence, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. Assessee failed to produce evidence of cancellation of MoU related to transaction of transfer of property - CIT(A) deleted the addition - HELD THAT - The finding recorded by CIT(A) is that only INR 5,00,000/- was paid which was not rebutted by the Revenue by placing any contrary material. In our considered view, the AO ought to have brought some evidence by making inquiry from the concerned builder about the transactions. AO without making independent inquiry, was not justified in treating the total sale consideration as unexplained investment. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere in the finding of Ld.CIT(A), the same is hereby, affirmed. Ground No.3 raised by the Revenue is thus, dismissed.
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the following issues: 1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Assessment of income based on search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer. Condonation of Delay: The Revenue filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The delay of 15 days was attributed to reasonable causes, and the appeal was filed on 30.12.2021. The delay was condoned, and the appeal was taken up for hearing. Assessment of Income: A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act was conducted, followed by a notice under section 153A issued to the assessee. The Assessing Officer framed the assessment under section 153A r.w.s. 144A, making various additions to the income of the assessee. The additions included agricultural income, purchase of agricultural lands, purchase agreements of properties, and sale considerations received. The income was assessed at INR 3,14,70,018/-. Deletion of Additions: The assessee appealed before the Ld.CIT(A), who partially allowed the appeal by deleting certain additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Ld.CIT(A) deleted additions related to consideration for the sale of property, MoU between enterprises, and Long Term Capital Gain. The Revenue appealed against this decision before the Tribunal. Deletion of Addition - Long Term Capital Gain: The Revenue challenged the deletion of INR 73,32,026/- and addition of INR 1,15,70,000/- in relation to capital gains and purchase agreements. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) based on the verified cost of acquisition and improvement claimed by the assessee. The Revenue failed to provide contrary material, leading to the dismissal of their appeal. Deletion of Addition - MoU Related Transaction: The Revenue contested the deletion of the addition of INR 1,15,70,000/- concerning the MoU related transaction. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) as only INR 5,00,000/- was paid, and no further evidence was presented by the Revenue to justify the addition. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, affirming the decision of the Ld.CIT(A). Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, upholding the decisions of the Ld.CIT(A) regarding the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) and affirmed the deletions of the additions in question.
|
