2022 (5) TMI 1032

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... against facts and law. 2. That the addition of Rs. 74,00,000/- has been wrongly and illegally made by the Assessing officer on account of unsecured loans. 3. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax appeal has wrongly and illegally confirmed the additions made in the income of the assessee by the Assessing Officer. The additions made deserve to be deleted, and the same may kindly be deleted." 2. No one appeared on behalf of the assessee when the appeal was called for hearing. It is seen from the record that since the various dates of hearing, no one has attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. Notice sent through speed post is returned back unserved with remark "kaafi puch taach k baad patta nahi chala". ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., who after considering the submissions of the assessee, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Thereby, Ld.CIT(A) sustained the addition made in respect of STCG and addition made on account of unexplained unsecured loan. However, the Ld.CIT(A) directed the AO to give the credit on deduction claimed u/s 80C & 80D of the Act upon the production of the supporting evidences. 5. Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee has preferred present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is against the sustaining of addition of Rs.93,50,014/- on account of alleged STCG. 7. Ld.Sr.DR supported the orders of the authorities below. He contended that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO had....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the property was Rs.1,11,49,986/- and as per the circle rate prevalent at that point of time, sale consideration of Rs.1,40,000/- was much lower. He submitted that moreover, there was no justification for not disclosing the capital gain arising out of the transaction. 8. We have heard contention of the Ld. Sr. DR and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that Ld.CIT(A) has decided the issue by observing as under:- 9.5. "Ground No. 2 relates to addition of Rs.93,50,014/- on account of undisclosed Short Term Capital Gain. During the course of assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer observed that Assessee had sold a property industrial plot no. 26/1, Block-B, Wazirp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion Officer has estimated its value at Rs.l,43,18,600/- as against Rs.2,05,00,000/- as per circle rate. It is seen that Appellant had purchased first part of the property on 26.03.2010 and second part was purchased on 21.02.2012 from Mohd. Idrees and the total cost of property is Rs. 1,11,49,986/- whereas Appellant has sold the one part of property on 29.10.2011 and another part on 06.03.2012 for Rs.70,00,000/-. However, Appellant has not shown Short Term Capital Gain. Since Appellant had entered into the transaction of sale which was complete, it was incumbent on him to declare the Short Term Capital Gain during the year. It is apparent that process of transfer of property was completed and Short Term Capital Gain arose in the case of Appe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the Fair Market Value of land. Further, Valuation Officer has taken sale instance of Narela and not of Wazirpur Industrial Area whereas the property is situated. Sale instance of Narela cannot be taken for determining the Fair Market Value of property situated in Wazirpur Industrial Area as it will not give a fair and just estimation of the value of property. Therefore, in my view, valuation report submitted by the Valuation Officer does not give the correct valuation of property. Secondly, Valuation Officer has based his decision on the basis that because of dispute, market value was less. However, it is seen that the time of valuation on 28.12.2015, matter was already resolved. Therefore, there is no basis in the claim of Appellant. Acc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... copy of income tax return in respect of loans of Rs.7,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- received from Shri Arun Kumar and Shri Daya Kishan Goyal (HUF). In addition to this, a copy of bank statement of Shri Ram Babu was also filed but no confirmation and copy of income tax return was filed. Therefore, the AO was justified for making the addition in the absence of the requisite details. 12. We have heard contention of the Ld. Sr. DR and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the AO had noticed that various discrepancies in respect of claim of unsecured loans received from the various parties by the assessee. Even before this Tribunal, the assessee has grossly failed to substant....