9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1057X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. - ITA No.511/Ind/2013 - - - Dated:- 21-11-2019 - Hon ble Kul Bharat, Judicial Member And Hon ble Manish Borad, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Mayank Pandey, CA For the Revenue : Shri K.G. Goel, Sr.DR ORDER PER MANISH BORAD, AM The above captioned appeal filed at the instance of the assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2008-09 is directed against the orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III (in short Ld.CIT(A) ], Indore dated 22.03.2013 which are arising out of the order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961(In short the Act ) dated 16.12.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... understand basic rule of law, because if after a sale deed execution any legal dispute arises regarding the sale deed property, the burden to solve the dispute lies on the seller on behalf. For example if third person claimed to that property and if he succeeded in his litigation so seller was bound to return consideration that this should not be mentioned in sale deed because it is a rule of law, which declared by legislature. So order of the CIT (A) is not sustainable as sold property title became disputed after sale. 5. The appellant craves leave to amend, after or delete any of above ground of appeal. 3. Briefly stated facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee is an individual. She f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e preferred appeal before the Tribunal. On the date of hearing on 8.6.15 assessee failed to appear resultantly assessee s appeal was dismissed for non prosecution. Thereafter assessee filed Miscellaneous Application for restoration of the appeal for being heard on merit. The request of the assessee was accepted and the case came up before us to adjudicate the issues on merits. 5. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested for accepting the additional evidence and also requested for restoring the issues raised in this appeal to the file of Ld. A.O for afresh adjudication after considering the additional evidence described in the following submissions made by the assessee:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sale deed. Thus, before diversion order passed by the revenue authority on 30.12.2008, the said land was registered as agricultural land in revenue records. For your kind verification the order of diversion dated 30.12.2008 is enclosed herewith. Also, it is highlighted before Hon'ble Tribunal and also in the records of Income Tax Department that the property under consideration was in disputes with M.P. Govt. and Nagar Nigam Indore. Therefore, it is highly possible that the actual market value could be less than the above fair market value which is based on guideline value prevailing in the year 2007-08. Considering the above aspects of the above facts of the case, we are submitting following document a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not be registered in the name of the buyer, second agreement was made on 23.11.2004 revising the sale consideration at ₹ 17,51,000/- and again on 27.9.2007. Final sale deed was registered in favour of buyer M/s. Balaji India Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd for a sale consideration of ₹ 17,51,000/-. In the additional evidence Ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed a copy of the order issued by the Revenue Authority on 30.12.2008 to support the contention that the alleged land was agriculture land on the date of transfer on 27.9.2007. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has also filed the Valuation Report issued by the approved Valuer on 23.10.2019 assessing the fair market value of the alleged agriculture land as on 27.9.2007 at ₹ 26,08 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
