TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 378
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(Appeals)- 7, Bangalore, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is opposed to law, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 43,68,495/- made by the assessing officer which is not the income of the appellant as the same was not part of the sale consideration negotiated with the buyer nor received from the buyer on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the amount of Rs. 2,18,42,471/- is the sale consideration of the Transferable Development Right (TDR) in the hands of the appellant as against the ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in view of the fact that there is no liability to additional tax as determined by the learned assessing officer. Without prejudice the rate, period and on what quantum the interest has been levied is not discernible from the order and hence deserves to be cancelled on the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The appellant craves for leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal, to add, alter, delete, amend or substitute any or all of the above grounds of appeal as may be necessary at the time of hearing. 10. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of appeal, the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed for the advancement of substantial cause of justice and equity. 2. Brief facts of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n received by assessee for towards transfer of TDR's. Assessee treated the sale value on TDR's in computing long term capital gains. 4. The Ld.AO called upon assessee to explain the expenditure claimed of Rs. 43,68,495/- made to the confirming party, Mr.Keshav Murthy have been made by the buyer directly while purchasing/acquiring the TDR's from assessee. The Ld.AO accordingly vide order sheet noting dated 25/01/2016 called upon assessee to explain the transaction and to produce details/evidences like confirmation from the confirming party, Mr.Keshav Murthy. 5. It was submitted by assessee in response that at the time of registration of assessee raised doubt, and questioned as to why Mr.Keshav Murthy's name is entered in the deed of tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s has been submitted by assessee before the authorities and consequentially did not accrue any right to receive such sum. Ld.CIT(A) upheld the addition made by Ld.AO. 10. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us now. 11. Before us, the Ld.AR submitted that the authorities below have erred in holding that sum of Rs. 43,68,495/- cannot be added in the hands of assessee. It was submitted that, the said amount was paid by the buyer directly to the confirming party and that the same was not part of sale consideration negotiated by assessee with the buyer. It was also submitted that the said amount could not be added in the hands of assessee for failure of the buyer to provide details in response to notice sent b....