9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Smt. Chitti Parvatha Vardhanamma (supra), the assessee did not ask the AO to referred the matter to the DVO, hence, the AO was compelled to complete the assessment by adopting the guidelines value considered by the SRO. But in the present case, the assessment was completed u/s.144/147 of the Act in the absence of the assessee. Only when the matter carried to first appellate stage, the assessee objected to the value adopted by the AO without referring the matter to the DVO by giving the detailed reasons as to why the sale consideration was lesser amount. Hence, the decision relied by ld DR is distinguishable on facts. In view of above, we do not find any infirmity in the findings of the ld CIT(A) to interfere and, accordingly, dismiss the grounds of the revenue. Unexplained investment in purchase of property - CIT- A restricted he addition - HELD THAT:- During the assessment proceedings, as the assessee has not filed details, the addition was made by the AO. The assessee filed some evidences during the appeal/remand proceedings which are examined by the AO. The position emerging from examination of the evidences and details filed by the assessee is that the payments are made ov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble for short term capital gains tax as per provisions of section 50C of the Act. Since, the assessee has not filed income tax return, the AO issued notice u/s.148 of the Act to the assessee to explain the above position. Since, there was no response from the side of the assessee, the AO completed the assessment u/s.144 r.w.s 147 of the Act determining the short term capital gains at ₹ 2,30,58,000/-. 6. Aggrieved by the action of the AO, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld CIT(A). Before the ld CIT(A), the assessee filed additional evidence regarding the reasons for adopting different value from market value of the property, which was forwarded to the AO for a remand report. The Assessing Officer vide her remand report stated that since the assessee did not present before the AO to putforth the grievance that the market rate is lower than the stamp valuation authority, the contention of the assessee is not acceptable. Thereafter, the ld CIT(A) forwarded the remand report of the AO to the assessee to submit her comments and the assessee replied the circumstances under which, she could not present before the AO and also submitted as to why the market rate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cordingly, the same is deleted. 7. Ld DR supported the order of the Assessing Officer and produced a decision of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in the case of ITO vs Smt. Chitti Parvatha Vardhanamma I in ITA No.1085/Hyd/2013 for A.Y. 2005-06 order dated 12.3.2014. Whereas ld A.R.supported the order of the ld CIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival submissions of both the sides and perused the record of the case. There is no dispute to the fact that the assessee had purchased the property for a consideration of ₹ 75,00,000/- and later on entered into a sale deed with Shri U Chandramohan others to sell the property for a consideration of ₹ 1,00,00,000/-. It is the contention of the assessee that due to dispute in the property, she was compelled to dispose the property lower than the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authorities. However, the AO opined that the market value of the property is ₹ 3,05,58,000/- as per stamp valuation authority. It is a fact that the assessment was completed u/s.144/147 of the Act due to non-appearance of the assessee before the AO. However, during the first appellate proceedings, the assessee appeared and made submissions as to why the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ld CIT(A) are that the assessee is an individual and is not regularly assessed to tax. The assessee has purchased a house property on 25.7.2008 from D.Shyamala for a consideration of ₹ 75,00,000/-. The payment towards the cost of house property is ₹ 60 lakhs as cash and ₹ 15 lakhs by way of demand draft. Since, the AO noticed that the assessee is not filing her income tax return, therefore, the investment of ₹ 75,00,000/- remains unexplained. The AO accordingly, issued notice u/s.148 of the Act by recording the reasons. In response to notice u/s.148 of the Act, the assessee did not file the return of income and also did not attend the AO. Finally, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee to explain as to why the investment of ₹ 75,00,000/- should not be added to the income of the assessee treating the same as unexplained investment. There was no response from the side of the assessee. Under these circumstances, the AO resorted to complete the assessment u/s.144/147 of the Act on 13.3.2015 treating the ₹ 75,00,000/- as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act. 14. On appeal, the ld CIT (A) after considering the remand report of the AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
