9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Ld.AO and it cannot be a reason to assume that the said amount is income in the hands of assessee. We are therefore remanding this issue back to the Ld.AO. AO shall carry out all necessary investigation as under - AO shall call upon the alleged confirming party and record statements. Needless to say that assessee shall be granted any opportunity of cross-examining the alleged confirming party. AO shall call upon the buyer to seek information in respect of the transaction and to verify the details in accordance with law. Any other enquiries /investigations, deem fit and proper. Based upon the above the Ld.AO shall consider the issue in accordance with law. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard shall be granted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eived from the buyer on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the amount of ₹ 2,18,42,471/- is the sale consideration of the Transferable Development Right (TDR) in the hands of the appellant as against the actual amount of ₹ 1,74,73,976/- only received by the appellant as evident in the registered sale deed on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the confirming party who was paid a sum of ₹ 43,68,495/- did not have any right or entitlement over the subject TDR and that there was no prior oral or written contract or agreement which is contrary material on recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal as may be necessary at the time of hearing. 10. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of appeal, the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed for the advancement of substantial cause of justice and equity. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: The assessee is an individual deriving income from capital gains and other sources. She filed her return of income for year under consideration on 08/07/2013, declaring total income of ₹ 33,20,570/-. The case was selected for scrutiny, and notice under section 142(1) of the Act, were issued along with notice under section 143(2) of the Act. In response to statutory notices, representative of assessee appeared before Ld.AO and filed requis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lain the transaction and to produce details/evidences like confirmation from the confirming party, Mr.Keshav Murthy. 5. It was submitted by assessee in response that at the time of registration of assessee raised doubt, and questioned as to why Mr.Keshav Murthy s name is entered in the deed of transfer as confirming party. It was submitted before the Ld.AO that assessee s son was informed by the representative of M/s.Century, that the deed of TDR s was prepared as per the companies procedure, according to which, Mr.Keshav Murthy s name is to entered as confirming party. The assessee submitted before the Ld.AO that, there is no pre-existed oral or written contract or any agreement between assessee being the seller of TDR and Mr.Keshav Mur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount was paid by the buyer directly to the confirming party and that the same was not part of sale consideration negotiated by assessee with the buyer. It was also submitted that the said amount could not be added in the hands of assessee for failure of the buyer to provide details in response to notice sent by the Ld.AO directly. 12. On the contrary, the Ld.Sr.DR submitted that, the alleged confirming party does not have any right in whatsoever nature on the TDR s transferred by assessee to the buyer, and therefore any payments made to the alleged confirming party is unacceptable. Nothing has been filed by assessee in support her submission, except for making oral statements. He thus supported the orders passed by authorities below. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
