9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 479X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not change the head of income in section 254(1) proceedings - We are afraid that the learned counsel s instant argument very well goes against the hon ble jurisdictional high court s landmark decision in Gilbert and Barker Manufacturing Company [ 1976 (12) TMI 39 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] deciding the issue in favour of the tribunal s jurisdiction to this effect. We make it clear that we have heard the assessee at length regarding the instant former issue vis- -vis taxability of the impugned section. AO shall ensure therefore that the impugned sum is assessed as unexplained followed by his necessary computation to be finalized as per law. This first and foremost issue is decided in Revenue s favour in foregoing terms. Deduction u/s 54F - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttention to the CIT(A) s detailed discussion as well as his computation in page 20 that he has wrongly included the admitted advance amount forfeited of Rs.23,57,143/- as part of the actual sale consideration of Rs.20.10 lakh, resulting in the gross figure of Rs.43,67,143/- than reducing the same from the cost of acquisition of Rs.8,64,220/-, to arrive at net capital gains of Rs.35,02,943/- in issue. 4. Learned counsel invited our attention to the impugned statutory provision section 51 itself that such a forfeited advance money has to be deducted from the cost for which the asset was acquired than adding the same with the actual sale consideration received on transfer of the asset. We sought to examine the instant issue of correctness o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tractual obligations, the assessee forfeited the impugned advance sum followed by her executing the registered sale deed dated 25-07-2012 in favour of other vendee(s). And that Pannalal Karwa above former vendee had put in appearance as a witness so as to avoid future complications. 6. All these assessee s arguments fail to evoke our concurrence. This is inter alia for the reason that the alleged argument between the assessee and Pannalal Karwa is neither here nor there on record. We find from a perusal of the case file that she appears to have produced only a proforma of agreement to sell containing no signatures from either parties. We further make it clear that the assessee s stand all along is that she had executed the so called I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his stage vehemently argued that we could not change the head of income in section 254(1) proceedings. We are afraid that the learned counsel s instant argument very well goes against the hon ble jurisdictional high court s landmark decision in CIT Vs. Gilbert and Barker Manufacturing Company (1978) 111 ITR 529 (Bom.) deciding the issue in favour of the tribunal s jurisdiction to this effect. We make it clear that we have heard the assessee at length regarding the instant former issue vis- -vis taxability of the impugned section. The Assessing Officer shall ensure therefore that the impugned sum of Rs.23.57 lakh is assessed as unexplained followed by his necessary computation to be finalized as per law. This first and foremost issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
