TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 866
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and probabilities of case. 2. The learned Commissioner erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer, wherein out of sale consideration of Rs. 10 Crore only Rs. 7 Crore are considered as sale consideration and Rs. 3 Crore considered as income from other sources. 3. The learned Commissioner erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer, wherein an amount of Rs. 3 Crore was treated as income from other sources and of total sale consideration of Rs. 10 Crore offered for capital gains. 4. The learned Commissioner erred in not considering the Affidavit given by the assessee before the Income Tax Authority and also erred in not considering the statement of the assessee before the ADIT (Inv.), and further erred in not appr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. This made him to believe that income got escaped from the assessment and issued the notice u/s.148 of the Act. It is noticed from the records that the appellant at no stage of proceedings contested the legality of issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. 3. Subsequently, after issue of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(1), Hyderabad, had completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 13.12.2011 at a total income of Rs. 3,04,99,640/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- under the head "Income from Other Sources" by holding that this amount does not represent the sale consideration of the property sold and consequently, the exemption u/s. 54F of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to assess the entire sale consideration only in the hands of appellant alone. In response to this proposal, the appellant along with her daughter, Smt. N.Dhanalaxmi filed an affidavit averring inter alia that they sold the property for Rs. 10,00,00,000/- out of which Rs. 3,00,00,000/- was received in cash and in order to avoid litigation and buy peace with the department, agreed for assessment of entire sale consideration in the hands of appellant alone. It was further averred that they acquired another residential property out of sale consideration in the joint names of the appellant and her daughter for a sum of Rs. 8,11,50,100/- and sought exemption u/s. 54 of the Act to the extent of Rs. 8,11,50,100/-. However, the Assessing Officer, wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e delay was on account of death of the appellant, leaving behind her lone daughter and her daughter alone in the capacity of Legal Representative (LR) had to take steps for filing appeal and her daughter, following the death of her mother, went into cocoon for a long period and it was further stated that the order of CIT (Appeals) was received on 19.07.2012 and the appellant died on 27.08.2012. The appeal could be filed only after her daughter, who is also only Legal Representative recovered from the shock. 7. After consideration of the petition for condonation of delay, we deem it fit and proper to condone the delay as the delay was caused because of factors, which are beyond the control of the appellant and, therefore, we condone the del....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sale consideration was Rs. 10,00,00,000/- out of which Rs. 3,00,00,000/- was paid in cash goes to prove that the amount was receive d only in connection with the sale of property. He further relied on the decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Intezar Ali in Income Tax Appeal No.162 of 2013, dated 26.07.2013 and Kerala High Court in the case of K.S.Kannan Kunhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax in Income-tax 72 ITR 757 in support of proposition that when the preponderance of probability is more in favour of the explanation of the assessee, no addition should be made rejecting the explanation of the assessee. 9. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative vehemently supported the orders of the lower autho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re, it cannot be said that since the appellant failed to furnish the name of the buyer of the property, Assessing Officer had failed to carry out further investigation on the matter. Perhaps, the Assessing Officer as well as ADIT (Investigation) had chosen not to make further enquiries on being satisfied with the disclosure of higher consideration than was stated in the conveyance deed or in the sale deed. The statement made before ADIT (Investigation) remains uncontroverted. Simply because it was found subsequently that this statement goes against the interests of Revenue, it is not open to Revenue to reject the evidence. It is settled principles of law that in assessment proceedings, it is not open to the Assessing Officer to ignore that ....