2022 (6) TMI 232

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... reads as under: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grievously erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,62,437/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69C of the Act." 2. The brief facts of the case are that during the assessment, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee along with her other co-owners has sold the agricultural land. The assessee having 6.67% shares in the land, along with other co-owners incurred expenses of Rs. 25,34,090/- for conversion charges of agricultural land to non-agricultural use. The assessee was asked to furnish the source of payment of such expenses/premium. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee no....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....through the orders of the lower authorities. The ld AR of the assessee submits that the assessee has no regular income and the assessee is also not a regular income tax assessee. During the relevant financial year, the assessee along with her other co-owners sold agricultural land after converting the same into non-agricultural land. On sale of such land, the assessee earned long term capital gain. Since the assessee earned Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG), thus the assessee filed return of income in the impugned assessment year. As the assessee has no source of income, the expenses on behalf of her has been spent by the family members and other co-owners in the following manner; Natwarbhai Patel Rs. 16,92,669/- (PAN ACCPP 1100C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 7. On the other hand, the Sr. DR for the Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. The ld. Sr. DR for the revenue further submits that the explanation furnished by the assessee is not supported by documentary evidence or any confirmation by the other co-owners. The copy of the assessment orders passed by ld AR for the assessee were passed by different assessing officer and they might have explained the source of expenses to the satisfaction of respective assessing officer. 8. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities carefully. We find that a very short controversy is involved in the present appeal. There is no dispute that that the assesseewas co-o....