9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (4) TMI 1007 - AT - Income TaxAddition on account of unexplained investment - A.O. has rightly calculated the purchase amount of the property as per the valuation of the stamp duty Authority as per provision of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act as applicable w.e.f. A.Y. 2014-15 - HELD THAT - As observed from perusal of the impugned order that the ld. CIT(A) had held in the impugned order that the A.O. has rightly calculated the purchase amount of the property as per the valuation of the stamp duty Authority as per provision of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act as applicable w.e.f. A.Y. 2014-15. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere or deviate from the findings so recorded by the ld. CIT(A) and hence, we uphold the same. Appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Issues:
1. Role of Assessing Officer without valid transfer order u/s. 127 2. Addition of unexplained investment of ?7,97,015 Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) for the A.Y. 2014-15. The assessee raised grounds regarding the Assessing Officer (AO) assuming the role without a valid transfer order u/s. 127 and making an addition of ?7,97,015 on account of unexplained investment. The hearing was conducted through video conference due to the Covid-19 Pandemic situation. 2. The assessee filed an application for adjournment, which was dismissed by the tribunal due to the assessee's history of seeking adjournments without specific reasons. The tribunal proceeded ex parte as neither the assessee nor the representative joined the proceedings. The ld. DR representing the revenue was ready with arguments, and the tribunal decided to proceed with the hearing ex parte. 3. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of ?7,97,015 on account of unexplained investment. The A.O. calculated the purchase amount of the property as per the valuation of the stamp duty Authority under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act applicable from A.Y. 2014-15. The tribunal upheld the ld. CIT(A)'s decision, stating that there was no reason to interfere with the findings. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed, and the order was pronounced on 16th April 2021.
|
