9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing Officer rightly adopted the jantri rate. As regards to the claim of Section 54 of the Act, the CIT(A) has allowed the said claim. Hence, there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). Assessee appeal dismissed. - C.O. No.122/Ahd/2016 (In ITA No.1947/Ahd/2016), ITA No.156/Ahd/2020 - - - Dated:- 7-10-2022 - Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member And Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Ketan H. Shah, AR Shri Aman K. Shah, A.R. For the Revenue : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER : Both these Cross Objection and Appeal are filed by two different assessees, namely Shri Maheshkumar Ishwarlal Bhojani and Smt. Mona Maheshkumar Bhojani agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITA No.156/Ahd/2020 which is filed by the wife of the assessee Smt. Mona Maheshkumar Bhojani. Therefore, we are taking facts of Cross Objection No.122/Ahd/2016. The return of income was filed by the assessee on 29.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs.21,830/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. During the year under consideration the assessee derived income as Timber Merchant and Commission Agent as well as interest income under the name and style of proprietorship concern namely M/s. Govindjee Vithaldas Co. During the year, the assessee has shown total turnover of Rs.56.30 Lakhs with GP of Rs.7.36 Lakhs which in terms of percentage is 13.08% as against total turnover of Rs.91.39 Lakhs with GP of Rs.10.34 Lakhs whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... into account. The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee submitted only the valuer s report despite sufficient time and opportunity given to him, but the Ld. AR submitted that the objections made by the Assessing officer are baseless as the assessee has filed valuer s report before the Assessing officer. The property valued by the registered valuer was not verified by the Assessing Officer but simply stated that the Stamp Duty Valuation authority is final. Thus, the said observation of the Assessing Officer cannot be the ground for denial of Section 54 of the Act and the benefit derived thereunder. The Ld. AR further submitted that the CIT(A) observed that in the instant case the assessee filed objections to the Sub-Registrar, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
