TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 1101
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ircumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition of LTCG from Rs. 65,73,500/- to Rs. 43,67,720/-?" 2. " Whether in law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing adoption of value of property as on 01.04.1981 at Rs. 3,79,000/- when the AO has not been given any opportunity to examine the fair market value as on 01.04.1981.?" 3. "Whether in law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition from Rs. 47,77,50/- to Rs. 24,00,000/- out of addition made by A.O. on account of unexplained deposit in bank U/s 69 of the IT Act, 1961?" 4. "The Order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both in law and on f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The appellant has not brought on record any will by virtue of which it can be claimed by the appellant that he was not the owner in his individual capacity. In the absence of any will, as per the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the appellant has inherited the property in his individual capacity, therefore, the appellant's claim that the capital gain belonged to HUF is not tenable. 12.2 It was submitted that the property in consideration situated at Gurunanak Chowk, Raipur was sold for Rs. 17,00,000/- during the year. The value as per Collectorate Guidelines was Rs. 65,73,500. The appellant has claimed that the Collectorate's Guidelines was on the higher side and adoption of value of Rs. 65,73,500/-was unjustified.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Order was passed ex-parte and the appellant did not supply any information in this regard. The value of the property as on 01/04/1981 is valued by the Chartered Valuer at Rs. 3,79,000/-. The AO has not challenged the valuation in his Remand Report and has submitted to consider the case on merits. Considering the value of the property in 1981 at Rs. 3,79,000/- based on Valuer's Report, the indexed cost comes to Rs. 22,05,780/- (Rs. 3,79,000 x Rs. 582) / 100. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled for deduction of Rs. 22,05,780/- u/s 48 of the Act. Therefore, the Long Term Capital Gain on the sale of above property is worked-out at Rs. 43,67,720/- (Rs.65,73,500 - Rs. 22,05,780). Appellant gets relief of Rs. 22,05,780/-." 5. The DR s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee. 8. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the issue at hand is covered by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah (supra). In the instant case the assessee failed to put an appearance before the AO, and, therefore, the AO treated the entire sale consideration of property at Rs. 65,73,500/- at long term capital gain of the assessee. 9. On appeal, the CIT(A) held that he was convinced with the argument of AR of the assessee that the property was purchased prior to 1981, therefore, deduction of fair market value as on 01/04/1981 and benefit of indexation should be allowed. This was not done by the AO in the Assessment Order as the Order was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed income u/s.69 of the Act to the income of assessee. 13. On appeal, the CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs. 24,00,000/- and while doing so, the CIT(A) held as under :- 16.4 I have considered the arguments and written submission of the learned AR as well as Assessment Order & Remand Report of the AO. The AO. in the absence of any explanation available, has added the entire sum of Rs. 47,77.500/- as deposited into bank in cash as income under undisclosed sources u/S 69. From the bank and cash compilation, I find that peak cash deposit in the account of appellant comes to Rs. 13,57,0257- on 10/12/2008. I find that cash has been withdrawn from the bank account and deposited subsequently. Therefore, peak cash deposited should....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cluded in the aforesaid sum of Rs. 47,77,500/-. 16.7 Considering the totality of the facts and circumstantial evidences, the claim of the appellant that he and his mother were having savings since past years out of known sources cannot be rejected in toto. It is seen that the documentary evidences have been filed showing sale of agricultural land at Rs. 28,57,102/-. The claim of the appellant is that entire deposit of Rs. 47,77,500/- worked-out by the AO is out of past savings, in the absence of any direct evidence filed by the appellant with regard to savings utilized by him for aforesaid deposits into bank, I have no alternative but to estimate his savings available with him and his mother, Considering the totality of the circums....