9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 882X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich does not need any interference on my part, therefore, we uphold the same and reject the ground raised by the assessee. Plot has been registered in the name of Ram Baksh who is father of the assessee. Similarly, the sale deed has been executed by Ram Bakh and his son Sita Ram. From these documents, it is clear that the ownership in the property was of Ram Bakh and in the sale deed only the name of the assessee is there as second party. In the Affidavit of Assessee’s father has claimed that impugned property (Plot) belonged to HUF and got mutated in the names of assessee and his father. Hence, the claim of 54F which was made in the assessment proceedings cannot be given to the assessee as the property has been purchased by Ram Baksh t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elating to assessment year 2009-10 on the following grounds:- 1. The assessment made by the AO is null and void. Natural justice has been violated. 2. The initiation of proceedings u/s. 148 are void, illegal and without jurisdiction. 3. a) The Ld. CIT(A) after admitting the facts, has adjudicated that the property in question does not belong to assessee, he has admitted that property belong to the family of Sh. Rambaksh. Hence addition amounting to ₹ 4,05,893/- as half share of capital gain in the hand of the assessee is bad in law and need to be deleted. (b) The calculation of long term capital gain is not as per law and against the facts of the case. The addition on that part need to be deleted. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see himself admitted that the cash deposited in the account of his daughter, belong to the assessee, the AIR proceeding against his daughter was dropped, and the total amount deposited in both the accounts was taken for verification in the hands of the assessee. AO on perusal of the sale deeds submitted by the assessee, has observed that total consideration received as per the sale deeds is ₹ 23,50,000/-, but the cash actually deposited by the assessee in his bank account and the bank account of her daughter Kumari Poonam was ₹ 44,98,000/- i.e. ₹ 30,80,000 plus ₹ 14,90,000/-. Therefore, the difference between sale consideration and the total amount deposited ₹ 21,48,000/- (Rs. 44,98,000 less ₹ 23,50,000) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o assessee, he has also admitted that property belong to the family of Sh. Ram Baksh. Hence, the addition amounting to ₹ 4,05,893/- as half share of capital gain the hand of the assessee needs to be deleted. he further submitted that the calculation of long term capital gain is not as per law and against the facts of the case. He further submitted that the reopening of the case on account of cash deposit and not of sale property. Thus addition on the score is also illegal and prayed that the assessment may be annulled. It was further submitted that the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) amounting to ₹ 1,00,000/- is not tenable, because in the cash flow statement filed was duly explained. He further submitted that after selling ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that approval given by the Ld. Pr. CIT in this case is very much on the record and there is no infirmity. With regard to tangible material, it is noted that the AO had issued query letters in response to which the then AR had filed sale deeds and bank statements from where the AO noted the mistake of an extra zero which he discussed in the body of his order. It is only after examining the tangible material that the AO has dropped the proceedings against the daughter of the assessee and has taken action u/s. 147/148 against the assessee. Hence, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed this ground, which does not need any interference on my part, therefore, we uphold the same and reject the ground raised by the assessee. 5.1 As regards addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
