9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1012X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Paper Book submitted before us, we noticed that the assessee has submitted before the CIT(A) an affidavit from the seller of the property to the assessee, copy of receipt acknowledging the consideration received from the assessee by the seller, copy of society transfer documents in favour of the assessee, copy of letter of transfer of tenement issued by MHADA in favour of the assessee, and the share certificate issued by the Society in favour of the assessee. The assessee has submitted these documents before the CIT(A) in order to substantiate the claim of the indexed cost of acquisition. CIT(A) has denied admitting the additional evidence stating that the same should have submitted before the AO. Considering the fact that the notices wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rutiny and the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notices under section 142(1) subsequently on 19.01.2021 and 24.03.2021. The assessee did not respond to the notices issued and therefore the AO concluded the assessment by denying the deduction claimed by the assessee as index cost of acquisition under section 48 to the tune of Rs. 31,29,204/-. The reason for the AO to deny the deduction under section 48 is that the assessee has not furnished any documentary evidences supporting the claim of the deduction. 3. Aggrieved the assessee filed the further appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted the documentary evidences in support of the claim of cost of acquisition and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the state of Maharashtra, Assessee could not be able to reply notices issued by Income Tax Officer in timely manner. 8.7 In view of the above discussion, I have come to the conclusion that the assessment by the AO cannot be faulted with. The AO has duly issued notices seeking the details from appellant with respect to deduction claimed u/s 48. These have been sent to the registered email of the appellant more than once. The AO has duly noted that the assessee is receiving the notices regularly but not complied with the same . Since, the AO has dutifully given an opportunity to the appellant to submit the details and in the absence of any details with respect to the cost of property sold; the AO was forced to complete the assessment by denyi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r notice that the assessee has offered the difference between the sale consideration and indexed cost of acquisition to tax under the head LTCG . The ld. AR accordingly prayed that the claim of the assessee is genuine which is supported by documentary evidences and therefore, the deduction be allowed. 6. The ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. 7. We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. The AO has denied the indexed cost of acquisition claimed by the assessee for the reason that no documentary evidence in support of the claim was submitted before him. From the perusal of the assessment order, we noticed that the AO has issued notice under section 142(1) calling for various details on 19.01.202 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
