TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 812
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 is contrary to the law and facts of the case. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-1 is not justified in disposing the appeal without giving proper notice and also without hearing the authorised representative. Even though it was mentioned that the Authorised Representative of the appellant appeared and the case was discussed with him is not a fact. Hence, the appeal thus disposed of may kindly be cancelled. 3. Without prejudice to the above, it is further contended that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 is not justified in confirming the addition made by the assessing officer under the head Long Term Capital Gain to the tune of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ilding measuring 2711 sq. ft. through a gift received from her son Shri Kommareddy Sadasiva Rao vide gift deed dated 12.10.2011. The assessee spent an amount of Rs. 2,05,63,106/- towards cost of construction of total area of 15000 sft. However, out of 15000 sft. so constructed, the assessee sold 6000 sft area along with 200 sq.yds of undivided and unspecified share of land to two different persons and arrived at long term capital gains of Rs. 40,26,965/- on the sale transaction. The assessee had claimed exemption u/s. 54F of the Act by showing an investment in a residential property measuring 3000 sft. worth Rs. 41,10,000/- and offered to tax nil long term capital gains. The AO verified the claim with relevant documents produced by the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....c., therefore, held the assessee cannot take the cost from the date of any gift but purchase. Thus the cost to the original purchaser as on 21.12.1974 is the deemed cost to the assessee. Since the assessee was unable to provide the cost as on that date, the AO adopted the possible rate as per the records of SRO as on 15.08.1982, which is valid in law and needs no interference. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the ground. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and argued that the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition made by the AO under the head 'long term capital gains' as the AO applied the cost of acquisition as on 15.08.1982 which is to be considere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... AR has also submitted copies of sale deeds in support of her claim. On perusal of the sale deeds it is observed that the assessee had sold 2 flats (3000 sft. each) for a consideration of Rs. 1,38,00,000/- and the entire sale consideration was received by way of account payee cheques and there was no component of any cash advances received by the assessee during the year and no written submissions were submitted by the buyers in support of claim of cash advances. The AO observed that though the flats were sold for an average rate of Rs. 2,300/- per sq. ft., market enquiries have revealed that the prevailing rates during the A.Y. under consideration was between Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 5,500/-. The AO held that it is a common practice in the rea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had not proved why the AO was wrong in arriving peak credit at Rs. 70,50,278/- except merely stating that the AO is wrong and the addition is made on surmise or conjecture and not even provided any material to disprove the contention of the AO. Thus, confirmed the addition made by the AO and dismissed the ground raised by the assessee. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and the Ld. AR argued that the assessee had given proper explanation and submitted proper details to the AO and the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 70,50,278/- u/s. 68 r.w.s. 158BBE of the Act and therefore, requested to set aside the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and allow the gro....