TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 1125
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee, however, written submissions dated 15.5.2018 is placed on record. With this written submissions and the assistance of the ld.DR, we proceed to dispose of the appeal filed by the assessee. 3. Brief facts of the case is this that the assessee is an individual drawing income from other sources. For the Asstt.Year 2010-11, the assessee filed her return of income on 13.7.2011 declaring a total income of Rs.3,35,070/-. The same was processed under section 143(1) of the Act, and then taken up for scrutiny assessment and notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) were being issued from time to time, and the assessment has been completed. During this assessment year, the assessee has sold immovable property for Rs.62,64,840/-. The assessee has cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....revised cost of acquisition in respect of sold out land would be as under:- Year of purchase Survey No. Sq. meter Purchase price as claimed by you (in Rs.) Cost of acquisition for working out capital gain (in Rs.) 1994 1439 7385 1,84,637 1,84,637 1994 1440/1 3325 83,125 83,125 1994 1440/2 2984 74,600 NIL (for the reasons mentioned above) 1994 1441 4000 1,00,000 1,00,000 TOTAL 17694 4,42,362 3,67,762 Proportionate cost of acquisition of land for 11288 sq.mtr sold to Rainbow Paper Mills 2,34,616 Since the A.O. has not considered the facts now noticed on verification of the records and allowed the long term capital gain as claimed the assessee while finalizing the assessmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5. The ld.CIT on perusal of the assessment records observed that the assessee failed to prove her claim for expenditure incurred so as to claim cost of improvement on the basis of vouchers furnished by the assessee which does not carry signatures and basic details. Thus, the AO erroneously allowed the claim for the cost of improvement without verifying the genuineness of the expenditure incurred and source of payment by the assessee. Thus, the AO completed the assessment without application of mind. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued on the assessee on 11.8.2014 calling for explanation from the assessee. The assessee vide her letter dated 16.1.2015 replied that the AO has examined the issue, and therefore the assessment ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....390/- by Account Payee cheque or by Demand Draft or by Cash for Labour / Wages " etc. The above showed even the assessee does not know how the payments were paid whether by Account Payee cheque or by cash or by Demand Draft and still the A.O. has accepted the same without any verification. Therefore, the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The decisions relied upon by the assessee do not come to her help." 7. Thus, the ld.CIT set aside the assessment order dated 25.3.2013 and directed the AO to make de novo assessment and pass fresh order giving opportunity to the assessee. Aggrieved against the revision order, the assessee is in appeal before us by raising the following grounds of appeal: "1. The l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....63 and also relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT Vs. Max India Ltd, (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). Thus, the assessee pleaded in the written submission to quash 263-order passed by the ld.CIT and allow the appeal of the assessee. 9. Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that revision order passed by the Commissioner is well within the provisions of section 263 of the Act. There is nothing on the assessment record to show that vouchers for cost of improvement were verified at all by the AO. The letter dated 18.12.2012 filed by the assessee during the assessment proceedings showed that documents, vouchers were enclosed for verification, but there are no such documents available....