9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 455X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HAT:- As gone through the registered sale deed, which is part of appellate order, wherein, it has been clearly mentioned that Shri S.V. Rajagopal, represented by his Power Agent Shri V. Sekar as Vendor executed the sale deed, which was duly registered in SRO, Neelankari, in favour of Smt. Geetha Sekar, the assessee towards transfer of scheduled property for a sale consideration and the vendor also admitted and acknowledged the receipt of the sale consideration. In the appellate order, CIT(A) has observed that if we go by the narrations in the Sale deed, then the assessee s claim that the impugned transaction is a family transaction where no consideration has passed is liable to be rejected since the actual vendor of the impugned property ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d no error in the orders of authorities below on this issue and dismiss the ground raised by the assessee. - I.T.A. No. 1762/Chny/2019 - - - Dated:- 8-6-2022 - Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member And Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri G. Gopalan, Retd. JCIT For the Respondent : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT ORDER PER V. DURGA RAO,, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 7, Chennai, dated 31.03.2019 relevant to the assessment year 2012-13. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 on 12.12.2012 admitting total income of ₹.8,15, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nation as to why an amount of ₹.75,00,000/- be treated as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. The assessee vide her reply dated 24.3.2015 reiterated the reply stated vide her letter dtd.06.02.2015 and also filed a confirmation letter dated 23.03.2015 from her husband to the extent along with a Indemnity Bond declaring that the said consideration will not be claimed as cost of purchase or any mode in future, if decided to dispose off the property . The Assessing Officer has not accepted the reply submitted by the assessee for the reason that the above sale is a Pucca Sale as the assessee had paid Stamp duty on the market value of the property of ₹.1,21,57,200/-, possession and the Title of the property was transf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... below. We have also gone through the registered sale deed, which is part of appellate order, wherein, it has been clearly mentioned that Shri S.V. Rajagopal, represented by his Power Agent Shri V. Sekar as Vendor executed the sale deed, which was duly registered in SRO, Neelankari, in favour of Smt. Geetha Sekar, the assessee towards transfer of scheduled property for a sale consideration of ₹.75,00,000/- and the vendor also admitted and acknowledged the receipt of the sale consideration. In the appellate order, the ld. CIT(A) has observed that if we go by the narrations in the Sale deed, then the assessee s claim that the impugned transaction is a family transaction where no consideration has passed is liable to be rejected since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
