TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 171
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the following grounds:- "1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in framing the impugned assessment order u/s 153C without assuming jurisdiction as per law and without recording requisite satisfaction as per law and without obtaining requisite approval as per law and without complying with the other mandatory condition as envisaged under the Act. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs.71,00,000/- on account of undisclosed long term capital gain and has further erred in enhancing the assessed income by Rs.2,73,00,0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ale deed dated 05.04.2007 executed in respect of this property, total sale consideration was shown at Rs.2,01,00,000/-. However, from the seized document Annexure A-1 (P-77) which was found and seized from the office of M/s. Shiv Vani, the amount was mentioned as Rs.2,72,00,000/-. Before the AO, it is brought on record that the assessee was the owner of 1385 sq.yds. only and another same measurement of land of 1385 sq.yds did not belong to the assessee but to her sister, Mrs. Priya Suri. It was explained that assessee had initially entered into an agreement to sell of this property at Rs.2,42,50,000/- but ultimately this land was sold for Rs.2,01,00,000/- only. The reason for lowering the sale price was explained in detail before the AO and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cate that the property sold by the assessee was for Rs.5.45 crores. The noting (on page 77) of Mr. Brij Mohan Goel clearly supports this. It has been mentioned very clearly that the noting belongs to the property purchased from Smt, Shashi Sachdeva (on the left hand side, bottom of the Page-77). Not only that the 50% mentioned against Winsom has been stated at Rs. 2,72,50,000/-. Further Winsom had also paid Rs.12,50,000/- in cash & another Rs.12.5 lakh in cheque. There is no mention of this cash in the final sale deed though the same cheque issued by Winsorn has been mentioned in the final deed which ultimately has been purchased in the name of a group concern of Shiv Vani. The cheque amount and cheque details mentioned in the said note ver....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rty wherein the assessee was the owner; and clarified that there were two properties being Khasra No.282 & 297 both admeasuring 1385 sq.yds., for which the assessee was co-owner along with her sister, Mrs. Priya Suri. Portion of the assessee was agreed to be sold at Rs.2,42,50,000/- but ultimately it was sold at Rs.2,01,00,000/-. The AO has wrongly presumed the sale of this property at Rs.2,72,00,000/- based on Annexure A-1 (P-77). Insofar as the basis for addition of Rs.2,72,00,000/-, the same has no consequence because it was not found from the possession of the assessee nor it indicates that assessee might have agreed to sale this property for this amount. The agreement to sell categorically provided that the property was sold at Rs.2,01....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....med that the balance amount of Rs.71,00,000/- is undisclosed capital gain on the sale of the said property. Whereas the ld. CIT (A) even enhanced this amount on some wrong presumption by taking the sale consideration received by another co-owner, Mrs. Priya Suri which is out-rightly incorrect, because as per records the property was owned by two sisters and both have received half the share and hence it cannot be clubbed in hands of assessee. Even this not the case of the Assessing Officer nor there is anything in record. Therefore, the enhancement made by the ld. CIT (A) at the threshold is deleted. 9. Now, coming to the addition made by the AO of Rs.71,00,000/-, we find that the entire basis of addition is based on the seized paper (supr....