9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1032X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng sale consideration of property. Therefore, in the absence of the relevant evidences, the finding of the authorities below remained unrebutted. Thus, Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is dismissed. Unexplained unsecured loan - no confirmation and copy of income tax return was filed - HELD THAT:- We find that the AO had noticed that various discrepancies in respect of claim of unsecured loans received from the various parties by the assessee. Even before this Tribunal, the assessee has grossly failed to substantiate his claim and negligently did not appear before the Tribunal despite having given various opportunities. The assessee was required to prove identity of creditors, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of creditors. The assessee grossly failed to do so. Therefore, in the absence of the supporting evidences regarding claim of unsecured loans, we do not see any infirmity in the finding of authorities below. Thus, Ground No.2 raised by the assessee is dismissed. - ITA No.1687/Del/2017 - - - Dated:- 20-5-2022 - Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant Member And Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri Umesh T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of deduction claimed u/s 80C 80D of the Act. Thus, the AO assessed the income at Rs.1,72,99,692/-, against the income of Rs.5,18,781/- declared by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions of the assessee, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Thereby, Ld.CIT(A) sustained the addition made in respect of STCG and addition made on account of unexplained unsecured loan. However, the Ld.CIT(A) directed the AO to give the credit on deduction claimed u/s 80C 80D of the Act upon the production of the supporting evidences. 5. Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee has preferred present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is against the sustaining of addition of Rs.93,50,014/- on account of alleged STCG. 7. Ld.Sr.DR supported the orders of the authorities below. He contended that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO had noticed regarding sale of property by the assessee i.e. Industrial Plot No.26/1, Block-B, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Wazirpur, Delhi in two parts. It was also noticed that one part was sold on 29.10.2011 to Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee had purchased one part of this property on 26.03.2010 and second part on 21.02.2012 from Mohd. Idris and the total cost of property was Rs.1,11,49,986/-. Assessing Officer observed that the total value as per the circle rate for the property on the basis of the two sale deeds was Rs.2,05,00,000/- whereas the Assessee has sold the property for a consideration of Rs. 1,40,00,000/-. Assessing Officer further observed that there was no justification to the Assessee for not treating the Short Term Capital Gain and for not applying the provisions u/s 50C. He held that the process of transfer of property was completed and all conditions of Short Term Capital Gain as per Income Tax Act was fulfilled during the year and, therefore, Assessee was liable to pay Short Term Capital Gain tax during A.Y. 2012-13. Assessee had also not challenged the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority. Assessing Officer computed the Short Term Capital Gain of Assessee for A.Y. 2012-13 by applying Section 50C of the Income Tax Act at Rs.93,50,014/-. 9.6. Assessing Officer has stated in her Remand Report that departmental Valuation Officer has estimated its value at Rs.l,43,18,600/- as against Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Market Value of property situated in Wazirpur Industrial Area as it will not give a fair and just estimation of the value of property. Therefore, in my view, valuation report submitted by the Valuation Officer does not give the correct valuation of property. Secondly, Valuation Officer has based his decision on the basis that because of dispute, market value was less. However, it is seen that the time of valuation on 28.12.2015, matter was already resolved. Therefore, there is no basis in the claim of Appellant. Accordingly, disallowance made by Assessing Officer is sustained. 9. From the above finding of Ld.CIT(A), it is clear that value assessed by the DVO was not accepted on account of the fact that DVO had adopted the sale instance of Narela which could not be applied to the sale instance at Wazirpur for assessing the fair market value of the property. The assessee has not brought any material rebutting the finding of Ld.CIT(A) on record. The assessee chose not to appear before the Tribunal despite various opportunities were provided to him. It is incumbent upon the assessee to prove true and correct fair market value of the property. Merely, stating that there was disput ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
