9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 521X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... %. The A.O. has neither called for the details nor the assessee had demonstrated that the motor cars were used for the purpose of running them on hire. With regard to the capital gains, the assessee had purchased shares at ₹ 10/- per share and sold the same at ₹ 10/- per share and claimed the long term capital loss of ₹ 1,28,65,574/- with indexed cost of acquisition at ₹ 2,48,65,574/-. But there was no valuation report submitted by the assessee to arrive at the market value as required by the Income tax rules. Therefore, the A.O. clearly committed an error which is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and the Ld.CIT has rightly taken up the case for revision u/s 263. CIT(A) while remitting the matter ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The said order was taken up by the CIT for revision u/s 263 of the Act and observed that the following issues were not examined by the Assessing officer(A.O).: i. The assessee had admitted the ental receipts of ₹ 12,28,020/- against the receipts as per TDS certificates amounting to ₹ 25,71,820/- on which the TDS deducted was at ₹ 3,39,268/-. ii. The assessee had claimed the depreciation on motor cars @ 50% against the allowable depreciation of 15%. iii. The assessee had admitted capital loss of ₹ 1,28,65,575/- and claimed the indexed cost of acquisition of shares at ₹ 2,48,65,574/-. 3. Before the LdCIT the Ld. A.R. submitted that though the TDS certificate shows ₹ 25,71,820/- towards ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taking up the case for revision u/s 263 of the Act which caused financial injury to the revenue. 5. With regard to the third issue, the assessee had submitted that the assessee had purchased 1,20,000 shares of M/s. Sudalagunta Sugars Limited during the financial year 2009-10 for a consideration of ₹ 1,20,00,000/- by an agreement dated 10.6.2004. The said shares were sold for same consideration, which resulted in indexed cost of acquisition of ₹ 2,48,65,274/- and capital loss of ₹ 1,28,65,274/- The Ld. A.R. argued that the shares were purchased as per the agreement and sold as per the agreement for the same consideration, which resulted in capital gain loss. The Ld. Commissioner not being convinced with the arguments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nderstated by the assessee compared to the TDS receipts as per Form No.26AS and the excess depreciation claimed by the assessee in respect of motor cars and long term capital gain loss claimed by the assessee. Though the Ld. A.R. submitted during the course of hearing that the assessee had admitted the rental receipts under two heads i.e. house property income and the land. The same was not examined by the A.O. The A.O. did not call for the details and the assessee also failed to furnish the details before the A.O. There was no whisper with regard to the difference of rents admitted by the assessee in the return of income compared to form No.26AS. During the assessment proceedings, no such details were called for by the A.O. nor the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counts cannot be construed that the AO had verified the complete information. It is obligation on the part of the assessee to demonstrate that the AO hade in fact considered and decided the issues raised by the CIT in the assessment. Though the assessee has purchased the shares at ₹ 10/- and sold at ₹ 10/-, there is a method of valuation of the unlisted company s shares to determine the market value and it is required to be certified by the qualified accountant. In this case, the Ld. A.R. submitted that no report of the accountant is available with him with regard to the valuation of shares as on the date of sale or as on the date of purchase of shares to determine the cost of acquisition or to determine the market value to comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 10/- per share and sold the same at ₹ 10/- per share and claimed the long term capital loss of ₹ 1,28,65,574/- with indexed cost of acquisition at ₹ 2,48,65,574/-. But there was no valuation report submitted by the assessee to arrive at the market value as required by the Income tax rules. Therefore, the A.O. clearly committed an error which is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and the Ld.CIT has rightly taken up the case for revision u/s 263. However, the CIT(A) while remitting the matter back to the file of the A.O., had directed the A.O. to disallow the capital loss based on cost of inflation index and remitted the remaining two issues for readjudication. However, we are of the considered opinion that all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
