Appeal allowed: Property sold by partnership, not individual or proprietary firm. Assessing Officer error corrected.

The appeal was allowed as the property was sold by the partnership firm, not the individual assessee or the proprietary firm. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not consider this, leading to an incorrect addition to the income.

---

---

Issues involved:
The appeal against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-4, Ahmedabad for A.Y. 2009-10.

Grounds of appeal:
1. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of A.O. determining income without considering directions given.
2. A.O. complied with directions of CIT(A) without granting sufficient opportunity to produce evidence.
3. CIT(A) wrongly described the assessee and mentioned the assessed income incorrectly.
4. CIT(A) erred in holding that the property belonged to the assessee without considering vital evidence.
5. CIT(A) did not appreciate contrary evidence regarding possession of the property.
6. CIT(A) did not consider that the assessee was not a partner in the firm.
7. CIT(A) confirmed that the partnership firm was converted into the proprietary concern of the assessee.
8. A.O. disregarded evidence placed on record and made no independent inquiries.
9. Cost of indexation was not considered.
10. Long term capital gain was erroneously computed.
11. Interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C should not have been levied.
12. The returned income should have been accepted.

The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee, a proprietary for M/s. Lakhia Brothers, did not show capital gain from the sale of land. The sale deed was executed by the sole proprietor of the firm, not the assessee. The property was mortgaged, and debt recovery proceedings were initiated. The Assessing Officer made an addition to the income.

The assessee argued that the property did not belong to her individually, as it was sold by the partnership firm. The Assessing Officer did not consider this and ignored evidence, leading to an incorrect addition. The Debt Recovery Tribunal's direction was against the partnership firm, not the assessee. The appeal was allowed as the status of the assessee was not correctly taken into account.

The appeal was allowed, as the property was sold by the partnership firm, not the individual assessee or the proprietary firm. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not consider this, leading to an incorrect addition to the income.

---