9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 000 (-) 27,00,000/-. Therefore the appeal of the assessee is devoid of merits. Hence we hereby uphold the Orders of the Ld.Revenue Authorities. - Decided against assessee - I.T.A. No. 972/CHNY/2018 - - - Dated:- 7-12-2018 - Shri N.R.S. Ganesan, Judicial Member And Shri A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri D. Anand, Advocate For the Respondent : Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM:- This appeal raised by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Chennai dated 02.03.2018, in ITA No.254/CIT(A)-5/2016-17 for the assessment year 2014-15 passed U/s.250(6) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. 2. The assessee has r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and made addition of ₹ 21,48,000/- (Rs.48,48,000 ₹ 27,00,000). While doing so, the Ld.AO rejected the submissions of the assessee that his share in the land was only 910 sq.ft., along with the right to use the path measuring 302 sq.ft., and therefore the stamp valuation of the entire portion of the land of 1212 sq.ft., (910 + 302) should not be taken into consideration for making addition U/s.56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act but only the stamp valuation of his share in the land of 910 sq.ft., should be considered. Accordingly the Ld.AO made addition for ₹ 21,48,000/- by observing as under:- 5. The reply of the assessee was considered carefully. The main contention of the assessee is that the actual t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... )(vii)(b) of the Income tax Act, 1961 to the total income shown by the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961 are also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Ld.AO by agreeing with his view. 6. Before us the Ld.AR reiterated the submissions made before the Ld.Revenue Authorities on the earlier occasions while as the Ld.DR argued in support of the orders passed by the Ld.Revenue Authorities. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. From the facts of the case, it is evident that the stamp value of the assessee s share in the land jointly acquired by them is ₹ 48.48,000/- which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
