2021 (6) TMI 534

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s raised the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal:- (1) The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous to the extent it is prejudicial to the appellant. (2) (i) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the application of the provisions of section 50C of the IT Act and consequent addition made to the capital gain of 11,40,000/-. (ii) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the total consideration received was Rs. 2,60,00,000/- and whereas the market value fixed was at Rs. 2,71,40,000/- and the difference is less than 5%. (iii) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have seen that the Assessing Officer made the addition without reference to the valuation cell as required U/s. 50C(2) of the IT Act. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e order in the office, left the organization as the business of the petitioner is substantially reduced. He kept the papers in his table drawer and did not intimate the fact to the Managing Director of the petitioner company. In the meantime, the Income Tax Department attached the bank account and the banker intimated tht the account was attached by the Department on 27/11/2017. The petitioner could approach the Advocate on 29/11/2017 and paid the appeal fee of Rs. 10,000/-. AS the Advocate was out of station from 30/11/2017 to 03/12/2017 to 3/12/2017, the appeal papers were prepared on 4/12/2017 and the appeal fees was once again paid on 4/12/2017 as the fee paid on 29/11/2017 was under a difference head. The appeal is being filed on 5/12/....