9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 1085X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Sunday, being 1st and 2nd February, 2020. Therefore, the learned AR submitted that there is no delay in filing this appeal. After perusing the material on record, I find that there is no delay in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, I proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits. 3. The grounds raised read as follows:- "1. The impugned order is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Bengaluru, ought to have held that the provisions of section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act are not applicable in the facts of the case. 3. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-10, Bengaluru ought to have held that in the absence of service of notice u/s. 148 of the Act t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 78,337. The computation made by the Assessing Officer with regard to the short term capital gains reads as follow:- Sale value as per sale deed Rs. 34,50,000 Guidance value of the property Rs. 41,51,300 Cost of acquisition Rs. 6,12,750 Income from STCG Rs. 35,38,550 Assessee's share Rs. 11,78,337. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the first appellate authority. Before the first appellate authority it was submitted that the reassessment is bad in law and ab initio void since there was no service of notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act. It was also contended that in absence of service of notice u/s. 142(1) of the I.T. Act, no assessment order could have been passed. On merits it was contended that if at all the capi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I.T. Act was issued, the CIT(A) had categorically held that notice u/s. 142(1) of the I.T. Act dated 18.01.2016 was issued to the assessee and in response to the above notice the assessee's mother appeared on behalf of the assessee and the case was discussed. The categorical finding of the CIT(A) has not disproved by the assessee. Therefore, the ground taken with regard to non-service of notice u/s. 142(1) of the I.T. Act is also rejected. 8.2. As regards the issue on merits, the assessee contends that the fair market value of the property is less than the guidance value. It was submitted that the impugned property needs to be valued by making a reference to the Valuation Officer. In this context, the learned AR relied on various judi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
