9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 601X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue of impugned notice u/s 148,which lacuna could not be cured by the Revenue subsequently even by filing affidavit. 3. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in not quashing the notice issued u/s 148 of the I.T.Act dated 17/18.03.2016 inasmuch as no income has escaped assessment in the hand of the appellant. 4. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) has erred in not deleting the addition made in the hand of the appellant on account of long term capital gain when the appellant has acted merely as the power of attorney holder of the actual owner of the property. 5. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) has erred in not deleting the addition made in the hand of the appellant on account of long term capital gain when no consideration was paid by the appellant to the actual owner of the property at the time of execution of the power of attorney. 6. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) has erred in not deleting the addition made in the hand of the appellant on accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued to the assessee on 18.3.2016. In response to notices, the assessee stated that he is the power of attorney holder of the property and there is no such financial transaction made. The power of attorney was executed on 15.9.2012 between Pradeep Sethy and Mirza Riaz Baig and the scheduled property of plot No.46, Tahesil No.244, Unit No.32, Govind Prasad, Bhubaneswar measuring 0.096 dcm i.e. 2380 sq.ft. It is stated that the said property was transferred to Mr Suresh Patra, Jagamara, Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar by the assessee as a power of attorney holder and no financial transaction was made by the owner of the property Shri Pradeep Sethy. However, on perusal of irrevocable general power of attorney entered between the assessee and one Mr Pradeep Kumar Sethy the AO referred to various clause and observed that - " Clause -7 -To receive the amount from the purchaser, mortgage or any other person, as earnest money, consideration, loan, advance and to give good, valid receipt and discharge for the same, which will protect such person, institution, authority or legal entity for me and on my behalf." Clause No.2, -the power was granted to the assessee to enter into any agreement for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to be adjudicated is that whether the sale consideration of the land belonging to Shri Pradeep Kumar Sethy will be taxed in the hands of the assessee who is only a power of attorney holder. The AO has observed that the assessee has failed to substantiate his claim with any legally admissible evidence that he has not received any consideration with regard to transfer of land. It is not in dispute that the assessee being the power of attorney holder has executed the sale deed before the Sub-Registrar, Khurda and acted as an agent of the owner of the land. Nothing was brought on record by the ld D.R. to substantiate that the assessee has received the sale consideration, which has not been declared as income of the assessee. 10. We find that the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Gyan Chand Agarwal (supra) after dealing with the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of C. Sugumaran (supra) and the decision of ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of Suraj Narain (supra) has held as under: " .....During the course of hearing Ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or as if done and by him. The coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Suraj Narain vs. ITO in ITA No. 1043/JP/2011, under the identical facts decided the similar issue as under:- "12. The admitted fact is that the appellant after correction of revenue record and recording the said land measuring 0.30 hect. In the name of Shri Bharat Singh and Shri Vijay Pal Singh, sold the same to Smt. Radha Khatoria vide sale deed dated 19/12/2007 placed at assessee's paper book pages 49 to 54. The said sale deed has been executed by the appellant in his capacity as a power of attorney of Shri Bharate Singh and Shri Vijay Pal Singh for sale consideration of Rs. 4.11 Lacs. Smt. Radha Devi Khatoria happens to be wife of the appellant. The enquiries conducted by the AO reveals that Shri Suraj Narain Khatoria, the appellant has not returned or made payment of the aforesaid sale consideration of Rs. 4.11 lacs to Shri Bharate Singh and Shri Vijay Pal Singh as the same is stated to have been denied categorically by them, but appellant's case is that the said payment stood made to Smt. Manju Yadav as is evidenced by the sale deed executed by the appellant. For such a controversy, the reme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
