9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 564X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of persons involved in the transaction. Thus, the assessee has not discharged his onus before the Income-tax authorities or before us. This factual aspect was verified by the Ld. CIT(A), which does not call for our intervention, and therefore, ground No. 1 of the appeal is rejected. - ITA No. 1367/Ahd/2019 - - - Dated:- 4-3-2022 - Pramod M. Jagtap, Vice President And T.R. Senthil Kumar, Member (J) For the Appellant : S.N. Divetia, Advocate For the Respondents : V.K. Singh, Sr. DR ORDER PER T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal is filed by the assessee against order dated 1.7.2019 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-10, Ahmedabad [for short Ld. CIT(A)] relating to the assessment year 2016-17 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are duly disclosed along with supporting evidences), but the assessee has again not responded. Therefore, in the absence of compliance, submission and clarification from the assessee, sale consideration of ₹ 84,60,000/- was treated as unaccounted and undisclosed income of the assessee and added to the total income of the assessee under the head income from other sources . Aggrieved against the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 3. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted bank statement of three sellers. It is evident that three sellers of the property have received ₹ 58,60,000/- except ₹ 2,44,166/- which is still to be received and ₹ 26,00,000/- has been received by the con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same addition is hereby confirmed, Consequently, the addition of ₹ 82,15,834/- made in the hands of appellant is hereby deleted. The ground Nos. 3 4 are partly allowed. 4. Aggrieved against this appellate order, the assessee is before the Tribunal with the following grounds: 1) The learned CIT Appeal has erred in facts and law by confirming the addition of ₹ 2,44,466/- by not considering the thing that appellant has paid full part of his share to purchase the property. 2) The learned CIT Appeal has erred in facts and law by confirming the addition in respect of stamp duty of ₹ 51,825 when it was paid out of withdrawals made from bank, agriculture income earned by assessee accumulated savings. 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
