TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 808
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The case was subsequently selected for scrutiny for this assessment year. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that in the period relevant to the assessment year under consideration, the assessee; his siblings N. Suma, N. Manjunath, N. Radha and N. Nanjegowda, children of Smt. Nanjamma; along with Smt. Dyavamma, C. V. Lokesh Gowda, C. V. Sudha, C. V. Indira, C. V. Gayatri, C. V. Sobha and C. V. Rakesh, children of Shri. C. Venkatesh Gowda as confirming parties, sold agricultural land of about 2 acres in Sy. No. 25 in Baluvanahalli, Kolar District vide registered sale deed dated 28.11.2012 for a consideration of Rs. 80 lakhs; which is paid as under: N. M. Raju (the assessee) - Rs.40,00,000/- N. Suma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the action of the AO; dismissing the assessee's appeal vide the impugned order dated 29.06.2018. 3. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A)-14, Bangalore dated 29.06.2018 for Assessment Year 2013-14, the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds: 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, equity and weight of evidence, natural justice, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The appellant denies himself liable to be assessed to a total income of Rs. 23,63,474/ as against the total income returned by the appellant of Rs. 4,74,527/- for the impugned assessment year 2013-14 on the facts and circumstances of the case. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case. 8. The learned CIT(A) was not justified on fact, in appreciating that the AO has disregarded the expenditure incurred of Rs. 5,00,000/- in computing the capital gains, thereby adopted a pick and choose method in arriving at the taxable capital gains, which was impermissible on the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The learned CIT(A) was not justified in appreciating that the AO has adopted an adhoc figure of Rs. 56,770/- towards additions of borewell and compound made to the property against the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-, without cogent reasoning on the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. Without prejudice, the authorities below ought to have estimated the cost of construction of a compound wall and a borewell, by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appeal, the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed and appropriate relief be granted in the interest of justice and equity. 4.1 I have heard the rival contentions; considered the submissions made and the other material on record. The facts of the matter in respect to the sale of the aforesaid property at Baluvanahally, Kolar District, as narrated above at paras 2.1 and 2.2 of this order (supra) are uncontroverted. It is seen that the AO in his order, accepts the payment of Rs. 32 lakhs made by the assessee to the children of the late C. Venkatesh Gowda; though not figuring in the recitals in the Registered Sale Deed dated 28.11.2012; and reduces the same from the amount of Rs. 40 lakhs received by the assessee from the purcha....