9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 530X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as accepted, and the said person was allowed to claim deduction/exemption under Section 54F - Furthermore, even in Mr. Pradeep Sharma s case, consideration was received prior to the aforementioned execution of the sale purchase agreement. It seems. rather curious that, in the petitioner s case, the AO has taken a decision that because part of the consideration was received before the agreement to sell, the income had to be treated as income from other sources, whereas in Mr. Pradeep Sharma s case, the income earned was not only been offered for tax under the head capital gains , but deduction was also claimed under Section 54F of the Act; a position which was accepted by the respondent/ revenue. A perusal of the impugned assessment o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epts notice on behalf of the respondent/revenue. 3. Since Mr. Maratha is not present, we have requested Mr. Sunil Agarwal, learned senior standing counsel, who is present in court, to assist us in the matter. 4. Mr. Agarwal says that in view of the directions that we intend to pass, a counter-affidavit need not be filed in the matter. Therefore, with the consent of learned counsels for the parties, this writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, at this stage itself. 5. This writ petition is directed against the assessment order dated 26.12.2022, passed under Section 143(3), read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, Act ]. 6. The principal grievance of the petitioner/assessee concerns the sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10. A perusal of the impugned order shows that there are two principal grounds on which the AO has reached the aforementioned conclusion. 10.1 First, a part of the consideration was received prior to the execution of the agreement to sell, i.e., 21.11.2020. The amount received prior to the said date is Rs.4,23,00,000/-. The balance amount was received after 21.11.2022; this was an amount equivalent to Rs.8,62,65,000/-. 10.2 Second, that upon notices being issued under Section 133(6) of the Act, both to RTPL and ISL, no response was received. 11. The AO was, thus, of the view that since the amount involved was huge, the said transaction had to be confirmed by the aforementioned entities. 11.1. Besides this, the AO was also of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
