TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 1044
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....u/s.250 on 03.03.2017 for A.Y.2012-13 by CIT(A)-10, Abad upholding the additions aggregating to Rs. 69,20,161 /- made by AO is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not considering fully and properly the submissions made and evidence produced by the appellant with regard to the impugned additions. 2.1 The Ld. CTT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in rejecting the additional evidence though the conditions provided under Rule-46A were fully complied with and even a remand report was called him from AO. The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in rejecting the additional evidence on the ground that the same could have been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7/- from the sale of co-owned property for Rs. 62,66,000/- on 28th Nov, 2011. The assessee has claimed to have received total consideration of Rs. 25,84,725/- out of the total sale proceeds of Rs. 62,66,000/-. The proportionate indexed cost of the property was shown at Rs. 53,678/-. The Assessing Officer pointed out that assessee has claimed cost of improvement in sold property at Rs. 10,48,757/- . But in spite of providing opportunities he has not furnished the relevant evidences in support of his claim. The Assessing Officer also mentioned that assessee has claimed transfer cost of Rs. 12,97,313/- but the supporting evidences has not been filed. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has determined the long term capital gain earned by the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ggrieved assessee has filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. During the course of appellate proceedings before us, ld. counsel has filed five paper books comprising copies of documents and details furnished at the time of assessment and appellate proceedings before the lower authorities. The ld. counsel has vehemently contended that ld. CIT(A) was unjustified in rejecting the additional evidences filed under rule 46A in spite of the facts that he has also called remand report on the basis of those evidences from the Assessing Officer and submitted that the case of the assessee was not adjudicated on merit by the ld. CIT(A) as the material facts reported in the additional evidences ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s reported in the remand report that sufficient time be provided to enquire into each transaction with respect to fresh evidences of the assessee and requested the ld. CIT(A) that the material may be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment after giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee. The relevant part of the remand report is reproduced as under:- "Under the circumstances, to accept to fresh evidence of the assessee with the prove adverse to the revenue. Sufficient time to be provided enquire into each transaction, I, therefore, recommended assessment to be restored back to AO to make fresh assessment after giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee to prove his claimed proper to inspect the correctness of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the end of the December, 2014 and the order of assessment was made on 17th March, 2015 because of limitation as per the provision of the act. The relevant part of the report of the Assessing Officer is as under:- "In this case, while framing order u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, it appears that the issue of income arrived from Long Term Capital Gain has not been properly, thorley verified. Since either the case or the assessing officer has been remained in transit due to restructuring process of the department. The AO had received the case records at the end of December, 2014 & the the order assessment 17/03/2015 due is limitation of this provision of the Act" It is demonstrated from the material fact reported in the remand ....