9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emand of Rs. 3,94,990/-. 2. .The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the addition made by the AO which itself was erroneous in the first place. 3. .The learned CIT(A) failed to take into consideration the additional ground raised by the appellant, that when no addition was made on reason of reopening, other addition cannot sustain. 4. .The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the levy of penalty by AO despite the fact that appellant was not granted opportunity of hearing and ex-parte order was passed by AO. 5. Both the Lower authorities have passed the orders without property appreciating the facts and they further erred in grossing ignoring various submissions, explanatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... officer is a reason to belief that the income chargeable to tax to the extent of Rs. 13.15 lacs has escaped assessment within the provisions of section 147 of the Act. Notice under section 148 dated 14.03.2016 was issued after recording the reasons for the assessment year (AY) 2010-11 with the prior approval of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation and Transfer Prising) 3. In response to notice under section 148 of the Act the assessee filed her return of income on 06.11.2017 declaring income of Rs. 19,500/-. The Assessing Officer after serving statutory notices proceeded for re-assessment. The Assessing Officer noted that assessee sold immovable property plot No. 296, Moje- Baleshwar, Taluka- Palsana, District- Surat for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause as to why the cost of acquisition claimed by assessee at Rs. 11,72,107/- should not be disallowed (disregarded). The assessee again filed his reply on 21.11.2017 the assessee stated that property in question was purchased by her father late Rangilbhai Morarbhai Patel before 01.04.1981, the assessee adopted fair market value as on 01.04.1981. As a part of property was inherited by her from her father, the fair market value as on 01.04.1981 was considered as cost of acquisition based on valuation report issued by registered valuer Shri Ramesh Jain to the joint owner of plot No. 296, Moje- Baleshwar. The assessee has not claimed any cost of improvement while computing capital gain on sale of immovable property. The reply of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case, which has rightly been done by the DVO, the valuation report can be faulted for the purposes of computing of long term capital gain and accordingly dismissed the appeal of the assessee on merits as well. Further, aggrieved the assessee has filed the present appeal before Tribunal. 6. The notice of hearing was sent to assessee by way of registered post on more than two occasions. The notice was duly served for the hearing fixed on 07.12.2021 as the AD card postal article (notice) is on record. The assessee was again served notice of hearing through RPAD which has been return back. On perusal of records show that authority letter of Shri Devan K. Kapadia, FCA and Shri Dhruv H. Hariwala, ACA is on record, who are regularly appearin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
