9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 537X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No. 363/Hyd/2018 - - - Dated:- 14-6-2021 - Shri A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member And Shri S.S. Godara, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri A.V. Raghuram For the Revenue : Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT (A)-1, Hyderabad in appeal No. 0090/CIT(A)(-1/Hyd/2016-17/2017-18, dated 23/10/2017 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act for the AY 2010-11. The assessee has raised three grounds in his appeal however, they are extracted herein below for reference:- 1. The order of the Ld. CIT (A) confirming the action of the AO adopting value by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he stay matters before departmental Authorities, I lost sight of the fact that the appeal has to be filed along with Form 26AS as the file got mixed up with other batch files. It was only on 21/2/2018 when the assessee requested to send the acknowledgement of the appeal filed, I realized that the same was not filed and immediately on 22/2/2018 the appeal was filed before the Hon ble Tribunal. However, by the time the appeal was filed there was a delay of 11 days in filing the appeal before the Hon ble Tribunal. 4. On perusal of the affidavit filed by the assessee s Counsel We find that the delay of 11 days in filing of the assessee s appeal before the Tribunal has occurred due to the oversight of the assessee s Counsel for which the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... registered sale of the property only in the FY 2009-10. However, an agreement is made on 12/5/2006 where the appellant had received ₹ 2.60 Crs, as advance. During the sale in the FY 2009-10, ₹ 3,16,82,500/- was received, totalling to ₹ 5,76,82,500/-. This is closer to the actual valuation of ₹ 5,15,88,000/- as per the SRO. Hence, in light of this discussion, I find the Assessing Officer is correct in taking the SRO Value of ₹ 5,15,88,000/- in light of ₹ 2.60 Crs advance was not offered to tax. 6. The Ld. AR pleaded before us stating that the assessee could not gather the details required for completing the assessment before the Ld. AO due to the permanent illness of his wife and her subsequent demis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
