9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1895X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es and will not make the reassessment a nullity in law. Accordingly, this ground of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Opportunity of cross examination of Shri Stephen John not provided to the assessee by the CIT(Appeals) - In the present case, though the statement from Shri Stephen John was recorded in the presence of the assessee s spouse, an opportunity of cross examination was not at all given to the assessee. If the CIT(Appeals)/AO collects the evidences from the parties during the remand proceedings, the CIT(Appeals)/AO should have given an opportunity of cross examination to the assessee. Hence, in the interest of justice, we are of the opinion that the entire issue to be remitted to the CIT(Appeals) with a direction to gi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the appellant. 5. The next ground is with regard to disallowance of cost of renovation in computing capital gains. The Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) erred in sustaining the disallowance of cost of renovation without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. The Commissioner of Incometax(Appeals) erred in sustaining the disallowance without appreciating the difference between cost of renovation and cost of repairs. 6. The next ground is with regard to addition of ₹95,00,000/- representing cash deposits in bank. The Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) erred in not considering the explanation offered by the appellant. Without prejudice to the above, the following are the alternate grounds: 7. The ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lers in the sale deed. Despite the same, she was paid an amount of ₹ 6.80 crores vide Pay Order No.517910 dated 14.3.2012. The said payment was directly received by the assessee from ITC Ltd. and the particulars of the transaction involving the assessee is exhibited in the contents of the sale deed itself. 3.1 The profits that arose in the transaction detailed above to the assessee were not declared to the Income Tax Department and as a result of the enquiry conducted by the I CI Wing of the Income Tax Department, Chennai, the assessee came forward to file a revised return on 31.03.2014 enhancing the taxable income to ₹ 19,14,060/-. The return of income was taken up for scrutiny and notice u/s.143(2) was served on the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... % of the total quantum and the balance 75% being ₹ 1,61,21,250/- was disallowed. Amongst the six recipients, M/s. Astoria Leathers and Shri P.R.Ramakrishna Raja, are stated to have been paid ₹1.25 crores and ₹25 lakhs as compensation by the assessee. However, in response to notice u/s.133(6) issued by the AO, M/s. Astoria Leathers and Shri P.R. Ramakrishna Raja vide their letters dated 25.3.2015 and 27.3.2015 had expressed that the transactions involving them had nothing to do with the property transaction with ITC. 3.5 The assessee is not the owner of the asset transferred to ITC Ltd. but had received a consideration of ₹ 6.80 crores. The obvious reason is that the assessee was compensated in lieu of facilita ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A) erred in upholding the assessment based on a return of income filed on 31.03.2014, which is a non-est return in the eyes of law. 5. Now, the contention of the ld.A.R is that the return filed by the assessee on 31.03.2014 cannot be treated as return of income filed as per section 139(5) of the Act, since the return is not filed on account of discovery of omission by the assessee but as a result of enquiry. According to ld.A.R, the return filed on 31.03.2014 cannot be treated as a return of income filed as per section 139(5) of the Act. He submitted that for a return to be treated as filed u/s.139(5) of the Act, it must be on account of discovering any omission or any wrong statement in the original return filed by assessee. If the ret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e under s. 143(2) are mere procedural irregularities and will not make the reassessment a nullity in law. Accordingly, this ground of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 8. The ld. AR, contended before us, that an opportunity of cross examination of Shri Stephen John was not provided to the assessee by the CIT(Appeals). The ld. AR, further contended that the CIT(Appeals) has given a categorical observation, in spite of para wise comments given by the assessee to the remand report of the AO that the assessee was not provided an opportunity of cross examination of Shri Stepen John. Therefore, the ld. AR submitted that while examining Shri Stepehn John, the statement was recorded by the AO in the presence of the assessee s spouse, Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
