Appeal allowed for fresh consideration, Assessing Officer directed to provide opportunities for evidence presentation.

The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide the assessee with sufficient opportunities to present evidence and to make an independent decision without being swayed by the previous order.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Double taxation of income.
2. Rejection of additional evidence under Rule 46A.
3. Determination of the cost of land and its taxation.

Summary:

Double Taxation of Income:
The appellant challenged the addition of Rs. 99,20,000/- confirmed by CIT(A), arguing that the income was already offered in AY 2010-11 based on an MOU dated 18.03.2010. The AO, however, assessed the income in AY 2011-12, stating the sale-deed was executed on 24.06.2010, thus falling within the previous year 2010-11. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had indeed received Rs. 1,28,50,000/- from KMM and accepted that Rs. 29,30,000/- was already declared in AY 2010-11. However, the Tribunal found discrepancies in the assessee's claims regarding the cost of land and required further verification.

Rejection of Additional Evidence:
The appellant contended that CIT(A) erred in rejecting additional evidence, specifically death certificates of the original landowners, under Rule 46A. CIT(A) acknowledged the death certificates but noted the absence of evidence supporting the cost of Rs. 99,20,000/- paid to the original owners. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence to substantiate the cost claimed.

Determination of Cost of Land and Its Taxation:
The Tribunal observed that the assessee's claims regarding the cost of land were inconsistent and lacked documentary support. The assessee initially claimed the cost included "expenses for exploitation on land and others," but later stated it was shown as an advance in the books. The Tribunal found the assessee's approach unclear and noted discrepancies in the audited accounts. Given the need to ascertain the correct cost incurred by the assessee, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the AO for fresh examination, directing the assessee to provide clear submissions and documentary evidence.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with the case remanded to the AO for fresh consideration. The AO was instructed to give the assessee adequate opportunities to present evidence and to make a fresh decision without being influenced by the earlier order.

---