9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he accounts, the value of the property was shown as ₹ 1,57,36,700/-. However, from the residences of the two sellers, a paper giving details of the consideration given was found and it is revealed that the actual consideration paid was ₹ 2,03,20,100/-. When confronted, two sellers confirmed the excess payment, while one denied the allegations. This led to an assessment and an addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the said order, the Tribunal held that the assessment officer was not justified in making addition of ₹ 54,74,200/- under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act. On that basis, the orders of the assessing officer and the first appellate authority were set aside. It is aggrieved by this order, the Revenue has filed this appeal framing the following questions of law for the consideration of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d be obtained from the premises of the assessee and should be signed by the assesee for its application in assessment when the veracity of the document had been proved already? 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the light of the ground raised, the ITAT is right in law and fact in interfering with the assessment? 2. We heard the learned Senior Counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority. It is this order which was challenged by the assessee in the Tribunal. 4. A reading of the order passed by the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal had followed the orders passed by it in the case of one of the sellers and it is primarily following that order the appeal was allowed. We find that the aforesaid order followed by the Tribunal was in I.T.A.Nos. 822 and 823 of 2008 and that these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
