9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een referred to during the course of arguments. Therefore, interest of justice requires that the matter should be re-examined by the A.O. in the light of contention of the assessee, in the light of provisions of Section 48(ii) and the decision relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the Assessee. Set aside the orders of the authorities below on this issue and restore the matter in issue to the file of A.O. with a direction to re-decide the above issue strictly on merits, as per law, by giving reasonable, sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Initiation of re-assessment proceedings under section 147/148 - Assessee stated that he is not in a position to argue this ground because he is not having even copy of the reasons rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... neous Expenses and Bank charges (ICICI). The A.O. referred to Section 48 of the I.T. Act because the computation of capital gain made by assessee was not as per Income Tax Act. The same reads as under : The income chargeable under the head Capital gains shall be computed, by deducting from the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset the following amounts, namely (i) Expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer (ii) The cost of acquisition of the asset and the cost of any improvement thereto; 2.1. The A.O. considered Section 48 of the I.T. Act above and noted that expenditure as mentioned by the assessee except brokerage pai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it cannot be considered as capital expenditure. This ground of appeal of assessee were dismissed. As regards the reopening of the assessment, Ld. CIT(A) noted that assessee did not raise the issue of validity of notice under section 148 before A.O. as well as in the submissions before him. Ld. CIT(A) also noted that since part of the expenditure disallowed by A.O. is accepted by the assessee are disallowable, therefore, it would prove that there was escapement of income. Therefore, there is justification for initiating re-assessment proceedings. This ground was also dismissed. The appeal of assessee has been dismissed. 3. I have heard the Learned Representatives of both the parties and perused the material on record. Earlier, this appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2012) 19 taxmann.com 355 (Del.) (Tribu.) (iv) Gayatri Maheshwari vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Jodhpur (2017) 88 taxmann.com 757 (Jodhpur) (Tribu.) 5. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 6. After considering the rival submissions, I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration at the level of the A.O. The A.O. has examined the issue in the light of Section 48(i) of the I.T. Act and noted that except brokerage paid and transfer fee, other expenditure were not incurred wholly and exclusively in connection to the transfer of the property. The A.O. did not examine the issue whether interest was paid on borrowed capital which was used for acquisition of the asset. No details have been mentioned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
