AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 39
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 10 lakhs by the assessee on 16.4.2003. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee for A.Y. 2003-04, filed return of income of Rs. 4,24,130 representing long term capital gains on sale of property. The case taken up for scrutiny and the assessment was completed on 28.02.2006 by determining total income at Rs. 14,24,130. While doing so, the AO added a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 as income from other sources by rejecting claim of the assessee that the same does not represent sale proceeds. On appeal, the CIT(A) held that the capital gains should be assessed for A.Y. 2004-05, but not in A.Y. 2003-04 and also deleted the addition of Rs. 10,00,000 added by the AO as income from other sources. Both the Department as well as the assessee preferred....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0,000/- received on 05/03/2003, as income from other sources since the same does not represent sale consideration as per the sale deed. The assessee also could not substantiate with any reasonable evidences to the point of such sum is part and parcel of the sale consideration. Consequent to the directions of the Tribunal, the AO made fresh assessment on 30/12/2010 accepting the total income returned by the assessee. In the assessment order, the AO simply stated that in the A.Y. 2004-05, the Department has considered the full value as sale consideration for the purpose of computing the capital gains and held the view that the capital gains are rightly assessed in the AY. 2004-05. He has not considered the amount of Rs. 10 lakhs as income fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Act was issued to the assessee to explain why the said assessment should not be set aside with a direction to redo afresh, after considering the above issues. 7. The CIT observed that it is the argument of the assessee that the total amount received from Smt. C. Usha Rani, at Rs. 63,42,000/ - represents sale consideration on transfer of property by the assessee. If the said amount represents sale consideration both parties i.e., vendor & vendee would have declared the same in the sale deed which was registered on 03/05/2003 as sale consideration. On the contrary in the sale deed a sum of Rs. 40,42,000/ - was only mentioned and to the extent consideration was paid by demand draft on HSBC bank and the vendor admitted and acknowledged the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hs received on 5'" March, 2003 as part of the sale consideration. It is a clear case of non examination of issue as well as non application of mind by the AO while framing the set aside assessment order consequent to the directions of the Tribunal. He simply held the view that since the capital gains are assessed in A.Y. 2004-05 rightly and completed the assessment accepting the total income ignoring the fact that the assessee has declared capital gains in this assessment year. The AO totally ignored the sum of Rs. 10 lakhs received on 05/03/2003 for including in the total income of the assessee. Therefore, such an assessment order is not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 8. The CIT observed that the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No. 1037/ Hyd/2006 carried on detailed enquiry with reference to the receipt of Rs. 10 lakhs by the assessee on 16.4.2003. He has gone through the replies filed by the assessee and also gone through the impugned sale deed copy which was registered on 3rd May, 2003 (FY 2003-04 relevant A.Y. 2004-05) and also given finding that the liability of capital gain is assessable in the A.Y. 2004-05 and the same was assessed in the A.Y. 2004- 05 vide assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) dated 29.11.2006 so that he opted not to make any addition for A.Y. 2003-04. The order passed by the AO is in conformity with the order of the Tribunal dated 16.12.2009. The AO came to this conclusion after detailed examination of the facts and circumstances of the cas....