TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 45
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pital gains of Rs. 2,73,905/-. He claimed that he has sold a plot of land for Rs. 7,50,000/-. During the course of scrutiny, the assessee was asked to submit the evidences of the purchase and the sale of the land in question. As the assessee could not produce any document in support of his claim. Hence an addition has been made u/s 68 of the Act of the total credit of Rs. 7,50,000/-. The assessee carried the matter an appeal. 3. Before the ld. First Appellate Authority the assessee submitted a General Power of Attorney given by the assessee authorizing the sale, mortgage etc. a plot of land, situated at 38, Shivpet, Surajnagar, Civil Land, Jaipur, Rajasthan, which belong to the assessee. The General Power of Attorney was given to one Mr. R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Global Merchants pvt. Ltd. [2016] 67 Taxman.com66 (Kol. Trib) for this proposition. He further submitted the paper book containing the copy of the sale deed and submitted that, this amount should have been taxed during the assessment year 2007-08 not during the impugned assessment year in the words the yearly taxation was disputed by the assessee. 6. The ld. DR Smt. Ranu Biswas, on the other hand, opposes the contentions of the assessee and submitted that, the assessee had offered long term capital gains of Rs. 2,73,905/- to tax and had admitted that there was a sale of immovable property and an amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- was received by him on such sale. As the assessee could not substantiate with docu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne Mr. Ramesh Pradhan on 4.06.2005 with respect to a plots situated at Civil Lines, Jaipur and that this plot of land was ultimately sold to Smt. Geeta Pradhan on 06.10.2006, it was claimed that due to lack of information and non-availability of the sale deed this transaction was not offering to tax during that year 2007-08. It was stated that this plot of land was originally purchased on 18.10.1994 for Rs. 1,73,430/- and thereafter sold on 08.10.2006 for Rs. 7,50,000/-. The long term capital gain was calculated at Rs. 4,02,470/-after indexation. After calling for the remand report the Ld. CIT(A) as at para 13 held as follows: "13. A Remand Report had been called for from the Ld. AO, and the Ld AO had forwarded the Remand Report as under;....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessment year 2011-12. In this situation, It can be said that the assessee Is just trying to mislead Revenue, presenting a tailor-made story. It can be concluded that the assessee has considered the amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- under the head LTCG income from income from other sources to avoid tax liability". 14. Thereafter, the observations of the Ld AO In the Remand Report have been offered to the appellant, and the reply (counter) In the matter is as follows: Addition of Rs. 7,50,000/- invoking section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Your Honour, the Ld. A.O. Invoked the provision contained in sect/on 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, the basic condition for invocation of section 68 is that the sum should be credited in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. The appellant has been unable to counter the findings of the Ld AO that he had voluntarily offered sale consideration to the tune of Rs. 7,50,000/- in the return. And that moreover, statement of LTCG as submitted by the assessee with the submission shows that sale was executed on 04.06.20io relevant to the assessment year 2011-12. 3. I find that there is Incorrectness In some of the claims made by the assessee, and there are Inconsistencies which are coming forth, and therefore the Ld. AO has quite correctly considered the amount as unexplained and added the same u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of the Ld AO in the matter Is sustained and the ground taken by the appellant stands dismissed." 10. I find no infirmity ....