9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 883X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h regard to the valuation of the property, AO is supposed to refer the matter to the Valuation Cell to obtained the market value of the property purchased by the assessee which was not done by the Ld. AO in the present case. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes DRP ought to have considered the submissions and the evidences produced before the Ld.AO, which were stated to be not properly appreciated by the Ld. AO, while rejecting objections raised by the assessee. Considering the prayer and the submissions of the AR and the nature of issues involved in the appeal, in the interest of justice, we hereby remit the matter back to the file of Ld. AO for de-novo consideration thereby providing one more opportunity to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e on 9/4/2021. Further, the Ld. AO also issued notice to the assessee U/s. 142(1) of the Act wherein the assessee was called for the details of bank account statements, details of assets in her name, address with email Id, immovable property transactions during the year under consideration. Since there was no response from the assessee, the Ld. AO issued another notice U/s 142(1) of the Act dated 18/12/2021 and 31/12/2021. In response, the assessee s GPA holder furnished computation statement through email on 3/1/2022 wherein the assessee shown interest income at Rs. 9,027/-, TDS at Rs. 2,790 and claimed refund of Rs. 2,790/-. On perusal of the computation statement of the assessee, the Ld. AO noticed that the assessee has not furnished any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at under the facts and circumstances of the case, the orders passed under section 147 r.w.s 144 and r.w.s 144C of the Act is contrary to the provisions of the law and facts of the case. 2. The Ld. AO failed to issue and serve the notice U/s. 148 of the Act and in the absence of the impugned order under appeal is liable to be quashed. 3. The Ld. AO and the Authority Dispute Resolution Panel are not correct in bringing to tax the amount of Rs. 15,50,000/- U/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act being the difference between the stamp value of the property as per the Stamp Value Authority and the actual consideration paid by the assessee. 4. The Ld. AO failed to consider and take cognizance of the evidences filed before him which evidences would substant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... more opportunity to pursue her case before the Ld. AO. 4. Per contra, Ld. DR objected to the submissions of the Ld. AR and argued that before the Ld. A.O. though the assessee got sufficient opportunity to substantiate her case, the assessee failed to do so. Hence, it was pleaded that the orders passed by the Ld. Revenue Authorities do not call for any interference and appeal of the assessee may be dismissed. 5. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. On examining the facts of the case, I find that the Ld. AO ought to have considered the submissions, explanations and the evidences submitted before him while making the addition. It is also pertinent to mention here that during the assessment proceedi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
