TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 800
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 51,65,600/- to the total income of the assessee which was added with the aid of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the A.O. 3. With the assistance of learned Representatives we have gone through the records carefully. 4. The brief facts according to the Assessing Officer are that the assessee is proprietor of partnership firm M/s. Shree Mahalakshmi Enterprise which is engaged in the business of metal fabrication. He is also partner in partnership firm M/s. Vimal Electricals. He has filed his return of income on 26th September, 2014 declaring total income at Rs. 2,86,290/-. 5. The case of the assessee was selected for compulsory scrutiny under CASS. The notice under sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... above facts, we find that the ld. Assessing Officer has narrated the facts in his Remand Report which has been reproduced at page No. 2 para No. 4.2 of the ld. CIT(A)'s order. The following details deserve to be noted: "4. Admission of additional evidences:- 4.1 it is submitted that during the course of assessment proceeding the assessee had contended that the purchase of land property for Rs. 1,40,00,000/- as per Sale Deed No. GDR/10360/2013 could not materialise and actually he could not take physical possession of the land due to pending litigations. He therefore contended that the addition of Rs. 51,65,600/- should not be made on account of the difference in Market Value of the property by adopting Stamp Duty paid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4.3 During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee had made above contentions and made submission that the land purchase was subjected to litigations and also submitted the form of Form-6, 7/12 Extracts, showing the land ownership of Shri Ramanbhai Mangaldas Patel and mutation of Entry No. 7071 in Village Form. However, before your honour, the assessee has submitted the Additional Evidences in the form of copy of order dated 12.01.2015 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, the consequential order passed by the Mamladar and the order of Rejection of Sale Deed (Namanjoor) order dated 20.12.2016 of District Collector, Gandhinagar. Thus, it is a case of assessee making a claim during the course of assessment proceedings....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....land measuring 10465 sq. mtr., land measuring 5232 sq. mtr. has been sold to the assessee and Rajeshbhai Ranchodbhai Patel. To be more specific, originally Nathaji Becharji was the owner of this land who sold it to Ramanbhai Mangaldas Patel. The mutation entries were not recorded correctly and a dispute arose while giving effect to the order of the revenue authorities. The revenue official wrongly sanctioned mutation in the name of Nathaji Becharji i.e. 3 sisters who are the vendors of the assessee namely Raiben Nathji, Shantaben Nathji & Kantaben Nathji. When this fact came to the notice of Ramanbhai Mangaldas Patel he initiated Civil proceedings and ultimately the dispute landed at the Hon'ble High Court. The mutation entry sanctioned....