TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 1032
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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". The assessee has not provided any new address to the Registry. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 noticed regarding sale of property by the assessee i.e. Industrial Plot No.26....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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, Wazirpur Indul. Area, Wazirpur, Delhi in two parts. One part was sold to Sh. Suresh Chandra G....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cle 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 Appellant during A.Y. 2012-13. The claim that matter was disputed is without any basis. Appellant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irpur 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. Accordingly, disallowance made by Assessing Officer is sustained." 9. From the above finding of Ld.CIT(A), it ....