9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earing to both the parties. We also direct the Assessee to suo motto appear before CIT(A) within 30 days of the receipt of this order of the Tribunal without waiting from the Revenue Department and submit all the necessary informations and also the documents so as to enable the CIT(A) to pass an appropriate order as per law as deemed fit within a reasonable time. - I.T.A. No. 843 /AHD/2013 - - - Dated:- 13-9-2013 - Shri Mukul Kr. Shrawat, J.M. And Shri Anil Chaturvedi, A.M.,JJ. For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri J. P. Jangid. Sr. D.R. ORDER Per Shri Anil Chaturvedi,A. M. 1. This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of CIT(A)-VIII, Ahmedabad dated 24.12.2012 for assessment year 2007-08. 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore proceed to decide the matter ex- parte qua the Assessee on the basis of material on record and the written submissions. 6. During the course of survey proceedings carried out at the premises of Shri Dilip Kumar Rameshchandra Sagar and on the basis of material found and on the basis of statement of Shri Dilip Rameshchandra Sagar grandson of the Assessee Smt. Shantaben Ratilal Sagar, Assessing Officer concluded that Assessee had earned of Rs. 28,41,556/- on selling of plots. He further noted that the Assessee has neither maintained any books of account not had disclosed the income in the return of income. He accordingly made addition of the aforesaid amount as income. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, Assessee carried the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent that the assessee has earned income of Rs. 28,41,556/- out of his business activities during the year under assessment and has not maintained any books of accounts and has not disclosed the same for taxation purpose by showing in the return of income. The income of Rs. 28,41,556/- was treated as concealed income from business and the same was added to the total income of the assessee by the AO. As mentioned in the preceding para the appellant did not avail any of the opportunities given and there is no material available to interfere with the order of the AO. Therefore, I confirm the findings of the A.O. As such the addition made by the A.O is confirmed. 7. Before us in the written submission the Assessee submitted as under: Brief ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore income from sale of plot of land cannot be taxed as business income but it falls under the head Capital gain. It is added that the appellant otherwise could not have sold land in search of single buyer and further in that case price realized would have been lower. 2.0 The A.O. was not correct in adopting sales price by doing bifurcation at their own. No paper was found which may state that Plot were sold over and above the document price and the appellant had received the same. The A.O. was aware that Shri Dilipsagar was doing construction work on plot sold and therefore if any amount is received that may be on account of his construction activity. Nothing was found which may indicate that the parties had given to the appellant amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve for sale of Plot is on record. No inquiry was made from the respective parties and therefore addition made is not legal. 8.0 The A.O. failed to take into consideration that Shri Dilip Sagar was engaged in construction activities and evidences were found of contracts obtained for construction of house on those plot of land and therefore when there was no bifurcation of amount into sale of plot and construction receipts, amount cannot be added in the hands of appellant merely based on bifurcation best suited to the survey team and no such amount over and above the documents price was received by the appellant. 9.0 The appellant submits that the A.O. should have calculated indexed cost of acquisition based on market value of land as on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the survey and thereafter of appellant and / or Ramesh Ratilal Sagar and therefore addition should not have been made based on statement of other person. No where in the statement, it is stated that the appellant had earned that income , if any. The appellant except sale of plot, had not undertaken any activity and therefore income related to sale of plot should have been computed under the head capital gain and the A.O. should have allowed indexed cost of acquisition. The addition has been made based on bifurcation made into sale of land and construction receipts on estimated basis. There is no evidence on record that the appellant had sold Plot for the price over and above document price and earned any income over and above docume ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
