9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of section 263 of the Act. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are hereby rejected. - ITA No.1835/Ahd/2015 - - - Dated:- 29-4-2022 - SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR ORDER PER T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 23.2.2015 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Ahmedabad relating to the assessment year 2010-11 by invoking provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act for short). 2. This is the 29th hearing of the case before the Tribunal. None appeared on behalf of the assessee, however, written submissions date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of land sold Reference of document for sale 1439 7385 1,84,637 1439 7065 Sale deed registered on 30/03/2010 1440/1 3325 83,125 1440 132 1440/2 2984 74,600 - - 1441 4000 1,00,000 1441 4091 TOTAL 17694 4,42,362 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17694 4,42,362 3,67,762 Proportionate cost of acquisition of land for 11288 sq.mtr sold to Rainbow Paper Mills 2,34,616 Since the A.O. has not considered the facts now noticed on verification of the records and allowed the long term capital gain as claimed the assessee while finalizing the assessment, it appeared that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue by allowing incorrect cost of acquisition. 7. It has further been noticed that the indexed cost of improvement was five times more than the indexed cost of acquisition. Further, as evidence of the said improvement expenditure, the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 24/03/1997 Filling with sand / loading unloading of tractor 3,49,000 * TOTAL 18,96,390 5. The ld.CIT on perusal of the assessment records observed that the assessee failed to prove her claim for expenditure incurred so as to claim cost of improvement on the basis of vouchers furnished by the assessee which does not carry signatures and basic details. Thus, the AO erroneously allowed the claim for the cost of improvement without verifying the genuineness of the expenditure incurred and source of payment by the assessee. Thus, the AO completed the assessment without application of mi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cost of improvement on the land amounting to Rs.18,93,390/-. Even these details are not given as to how these payments were made. The declaration says the expenses for cost of improvement, construction, re-development were paid for Rs.18,93,390/- by Account Payee cheque or by Demand Draft or by Cash for Labour / Wages etc. The above showed even the assessee does not know how the payments were paid whether by Account Payee cheque or by cash or by Demand Draft and still the A.O. has accepted the same without any verification. Therefore, the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The decisions relied upon by the assessee do not come to her help. 7. Thus, the ld.CIT set aside the assessment order dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The ld.DR appearing for the Revenue states that the grounds raised by the assessee are general in nature without any material or evidence in support of her claim. However, written arguments filed by the assessee is also challenging invocation of section 263 and also relied on the decisions of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT Vs. Max India Ltd, (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). Thus, the assessee pleaded in the written submission to quash 263-order passed by the ld.CIT and allow the appeal of the assessee. 9. Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that revision order passed by the Commissioner is well within the provisions of section 263 of the Act. There is nothing on the assessment record to show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
