Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (8) TMI 1340

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... essee failed to produce evidence of cancellation of MoU related to transaction of transfer of property - CIT(A) deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- The finding recorded by CIT(A) is that only INR 5,00,000/- was paid which was not rebutted by the Revenue by placing any contrary material. In our considered view, the AO ought to have brought some evidence by making inquiry from the concerned builder about the transactions. AO without making independent inquiry, was not justified in treating the total sale consideration as unexplained investment. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere in the finding of Ld.CIT(A), the same is hereby, affirmed. Ground No.3 raised by the Revenue is thus, dismissed. - Shri N.K.Billaiya, Accountant Mem .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that service of notice was affected on 08.10.2021. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned and the appeal is taken up for hearing. 3. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ), was conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Department on 14.12.2016. The residential premises of the assessee were also covered. Thereafter, a notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee on 31.03.2018 and duly served upon the assessee. However, the assessee did not file his return of income during the allotted time. However, in response to notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act, the assessee filed his return of income, declaring income of INR .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as challenged the deletion of INR 73,32,026/- and addition of INR 1,15,70,000/- in respect of capital gain and addition made on account of purchase agreement in respect of properties in the building M/s. Vardhman Enclave. Ld.CIT DR representing the Revenue supported the assessment order and submitted that Ld.CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the additions. 7. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the findings of Ld.CIT(A) and submitted that the AO was not justified in making the additions and he submitted that qua Ground No.1, the AO accepted the Remand Report. He drew our attention to the relevant portion of the impugned order where Ld.CIT(A) has recorded the contents of the Remand Report. 8. We have heard Ld. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d under the residuary head Income from other sources . The income had been correctly shown by the appellant under the head Capital Gains . Further the AO had verified the indexed cost of acquisition/improvement claimed by the appellant to be correct as per the records of the appellant. In these facts circumstances of the case, it is held that the transactions of the appellant are taxable under the head capital gains and the indexed cost of acquisition/improvement claimed by the appellant at Rs. 73,32,026/- is allowable expenditure under this head. The net income of Rs. 16,67,974/- has been correctly offered by the appellant under the head capital gains and no interference is called in this computation/income filed by the appellant. Acco .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... zed Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that Ld.CIT(A) has decided the issue by giving a finding on facts by observing as under:- 13.3. ..In these facts circumstances of the case, it is held that the appellant had made payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- only w.r.t. this MOU and this payment has been verified by the AO from records. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 1,15,70,000/- made by the AO on account of undisclosed investment in property is not sustainable and is hereby deleted. 14. The finding recorded by Ld.CIT(A) is that only INR 5,00,000/- was paid which was not rebutted by the Revenue by placing any contrary material. In our considered view, the AO ought to have brought som .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates