TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 384
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Sec. 50C. 2. The Hon. CIT(Appeals), Nagpur failed to consider the facts of the case and evidence in true perspective and erred in disallowing ground No. 1(b) and further erred in treating business loss of Rs. 28,280/- as Capital Loss. 3. The Hon.CIT(Appeals), Nagpur failed to consider that facts of the case and evidence in true perspective and erred in disallowing ground No. 1(c) and further erred in treating Rs. 29.53 lacs as unexplained investment. 2. In this case the AO noted that the assessee has filed a return of income in Form ITR-2. The return was processed u/s 143(1). Thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny. The AO noted that the assessee has sold one property referred as Property No.1 for a consideration of Rs. 34 lak....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad borne total cost for executing the power of attorney at Rs. 2953840/- and consequently the AO asked the appellant to explain the source of said cash. Since the appellant was unable to furnish any explanation with regard to the source of investment of the said property, he added the said amount of Rs. 2953840/- to the income of the appellant. 4. Before the learned CIT(Appeals) the assessee submitted that he was regularly doing business of sale and purchase of property and the said fact was noticed by the AO in AY 2008-09 also during the course of scrutiny proceedings. It was submitted that in assessment proceedings and appellate proceedings for AY 2008-09 it was established that the appellant is trading in property and that therefore pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sufficient opportunity was given by the AO to the assessee. Hence he confirmed the addition on this account. 8. Against the above order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 9. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. We find that in the earlier assessment year the AO has held that the asessee's income from sale of land was income from business. Despite this submission the authorities below have chosen to ignore this aspect on the plea that the assessee has submitted the return of income in Form ITR-2. In our considered opinion this is not at all a cogent reasoning. In the preceding scrutiny assessment the Revenue has held that the assessee's transaction in sale and purchase of land was a business income. If this be so, th....