TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 564
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he firm, and income from other sources. The assessee filed his return of income on 21.9.2017 declaring total income at Rs. 7,67,300/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine whether investment and income relating to the properties are duly disclosed by the assessee or not. The Ld. AO issued requisite notices from time to time and sought for various informations in this regard. It is observed that the assessee as Power Attorney holder, sold immovable property viz. land situated at Village Kamod, Sub-District Vata, District Ahmedabad at survey No. 62 for Rs. 84,60,000/- on 15.2.2016 vide registered sale deed document No. 368/2016. It was further noticed by the AO that the above property was purchased by the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt observation and finding of the Ld. CIT(A) are as follows: "4.1 .... In my opinion the addition made of Rs. 26,00,000/- in the hands of appellant on account of money received by confirming party and addition of Rs. 58,60,000/- made on account of undisclosed sale consideration (father and 2 uncles) is not correct as per law. This is because the money trail is going to specific sellers & confirming party. It so happened that the three old family members desired to execute legal papers in registration office on their behalf and given power of attorney to Appellant for that specific purpose. No tax liability can be fastened on the holder of power of attorney as the entire sale consideration (including the payment received by confirming ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ree sellers and confirming party. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in confirming to the extent of Rs. 2,44,166/- as addition in the hands of the assessee. 6. In reply, the Ld. DR has stated that the assessee could not able to prove receipt of Rs. 2,44,166/- by the sellers during the ex-parte assessment proceedings, as well as before the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) even after lapse of four years from the date of sale registration. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence, the addition is to be sustained. 7. We have gone through the material available on record and the orders passed by the authorities below. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted Rs. 82,15,834/- i.e. [Rs. 58,60,000/- plus Rs. 26,00,000/- minus Rs. ....