9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 875X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as deduction. Since the order of the CIT(A) / NFAC is erroneous to the extent that he has considered the share of the assessee at 50% as against 1/3rd and since the assessee has filed certain additional evidences in support of his claim of deduction of the amount paid to the consenting party, therefore, after admitting the additional evidence, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to adjudicate the issue afresh as per fact and law after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - As we find that the quantum appeal filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee. However, the assessee did not file any return in response to the said notice. Subsequently, the statutory notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act also remained non-complied with. The Assessing Officer, therefore, proceeded to complete the assessment u/s 144 of the Act. Since the assessee has sold the property at Rs. 1,30,00,000/- along with Mrs. Padma Neelkanth Shirole, the Assessing Officer determined 50% share of the assessee at Rs. 65,00,000/- and brought the same to tax under Long term capital gain . 3. Before the CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee submitted that the share of the assessee in the immovable property sold is only 1/3rd and that the Assessing Officer has not given the benefit of cost of acquisition and the amount paid to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5,00,000/-. 4. The Ld AO erred in and Ld CIT(A) erred in not allowing the payment made to consenting party as expenses on transfer of Rs. 20,00,000/-. 5. The Ld. AO and Ld CIT(A) ought to have allowed Rs. 13,33,333/- being amount paid directly to consenting party by buyer as expenses in connection with transfer. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that although the sale deed clearly and categorically states that there are three sellers, the CIT(A) / NFAC committed an error by not allocating 1/3rd share of the sale consideration and instead upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in determining the share of the assessee at Rs. 65,00,000/-. Further, the amount paid by the assessee to the consenting party was not allowed as a dedu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the consenting party as deduction. Since the order of the CIT(A) / NFAC is erroneous to the extent that he has considered the share of the assessee at 50% as against 1/3rd and since the assessee has filed certain additional evidences in support of his claim of deduction of the amount paid to the consenting party, therefore, after admitting the additional evidence, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to adjudicate the issue afresh as per fact and law after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.159/PUN/2024 9. The assessee in the impugned appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
