9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 812X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Officer by adopting per acre cost at ₹.5.40 lakhs. It is also an admitted fact that the Assessing Officer has failed to summon the seller under section 133(6) of the Act to verify the actual sale consideration received by him or verified seller s return of income or recorded any statement of the seller. On perusal of the orders of authorities below, the assessee has purchased for himself 16.075 acres of land and arranged four of his friends to purchase a large extent of 354.185 acres for a sale consideration of ₹.5.40 lakhs per acre, we are of the opinion that there is every possibility of getting much lesser price for assessee s portion even book value. In the absence of any verification from the seller under section 133( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11.2008 admitting income of ₹.85,84,920/-. In response to the notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed another return of income on 04.11.2011 admitting the same total income of ₹.85,84,920/-. 2.1 During the course of reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the cost of purchase for the portion of the land belonging to the assessee was taken only at ₹.24,37,400/-, whereas, the total purchase price of 50.26 acres comes to ₹.2,99,91,600/- and the share of cost for 16.075 acres (including the Martin Land) as per the impounded document was ₹.1,15,29,000/-. Since the purchase price of ₹.5.40 lakhs per acre paid by other parties was supported by the impounded material, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsustainable both in law and on facts of the case. 2) The learned CIT(A) has erred in not deleting the entire addition of Rs.89,39,610/- made by the learned AO u/s 69B and granting a relief of only Rs.28,45,800/- against the said addition. 3) The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the addition made by the learned AO was only based on an incomplete excel statement which was in the process of preparation on a Cut, Copy, Past mode, taken as a print out from the computer of the Assessee, when the staff of the Assessee was actually working on the statement and hence should not be relied upon and has no evidentiary value. 4) The learned CIT (A) ought to have accepted that there is no material or convincing corroborative evi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder of the Tribunal dated 04.05.2016 has been recalled as per the Miscellaneous Petition of the assessee and vide order dated 10.05.2019 in M.P. No. 61/Chny/2019 only for the purpose of adjudicating ground Nos. 1 to 5 as raised in the appeal filed by the assessee and posted the appeal for hearing. 6. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that having ignored the loose sheet No. 9 impounded during survey proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) has erroneously calculated the cost of purchase of land at ₹.5,40,000/- per acre without any basis and prayed for accepting the stamp duty value of SRO as cost of purchase of land. 7. On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly supported the order of the ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal, by considering the cost of the land purchased by four of assessee s friends for a sale consideration of ₹.5.40 lakhs per acre, the ld. CIT(A) was of the opinion that the cost paid by the assessee should not be less than other friends paid to the seller. We are unable to accept the above concept of the ld. CIT(A). Admittedly, the ld. CIT(A) has not given any cognizance over the impounded materials from the residence of the assessee, which was the base for assessing the purchase consideration at ₹.1,15,29,000/- by the Assessing Officer by adopting per acre cost at ₹.5.40 lakhs. It is also an admitted fact that the Assessing Officer has failed to summon the seller under section 133(6) of the Act to verify the actual sal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
