AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 722
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and on facts in passing the order on the date on which notice of further hearing was given and adjournment was also granted and submission were made which were not considered. 3. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in not properly appreciating the facts, various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which ought to have been considered before passing the impugned order. 4. The order passed by the Learned CIT(A) is illegal, invalid and bad in law. It be so held now. 5. The assessee craves leave to add, amend, alter, delete, change or modify any or all grounds of appeal before or at the time of the hearing. 3. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 8,92,000/- on account of disallowances of Mattipuran & land leveling expenses. 4. The brief facts are that the assessee is an individual and partner in partnership firm namely GDP Associates and GDP Infra World. In the return of income for the year under consideration, the assessee declared an income of Rs. 9,21,387/- only. The return of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS vide no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pital gain. 6. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT-A. The assessee before the ld. CIT-A submitted that disallowance was made merely on the basis of statement of Shri Natubhai which was recorded in connection with partnership firm GDP Infra World. In case of co-owner, the opportunity of cross examination of Shri Natubhai was provided by the learned CIT-A, where Shri Natubhai has clarified that at the earlier occasion he has given statement in connection GDP Infra world for which he has not carried the work of mattipuran. He further clarified that he has carried out the work of mattipuran for the assessee's co-owner and issued bill for the same. Thus in view of the above and after considering the facts that payment was made through banking channel, the disallowances made by the AO should be deleted. 7. However, the learned CIT-A after consideration the submission of the assessee confirmed the finding of the AO by observing as under: 2.6 In view of the above discussion, it is seen that Shri Koradiya Natubhai in reply recorded on oath u/s.131 of the Act on 26/07/2016 before ITO Ward-2, Gandhinagar in the case of Shri Gaurang Ravindrakumar Vy....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee has wrongly claimed earth filling charges by forged as deposed by Shri Natubhai K. Koradia in his statement u/s. 131 of the Act. The appellant has prepared bogus receipts for payment of Shri Koradia by giving contradictory dates for the issue of cheques. The entire amount was shown as paid after five months of execution of work by a Mason of small means who had denied having done any such work for the appellant. This is also to be noted that a mason who himself is deposing that he can work only as labour-work of plastering and not filling of land as claimed by the appellant. The claim by the appellant is not genuine. In view of the above facts and discussion, the addition made by the AO is confirmed in toto. The ground of the appellant is dismissed. 8. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us. 9. The AR before us filed a paper book running form pages 1 to 86 and reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below. 10. On the other hand, the learned DR before us vehemently supported the stand of the authorities below by reiterating the findings contained in the respective orders which we have already adverted to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en the assessee cannot be treated indifferently. In this regard I find support and guidance from the order of coordinate bench of this tribunal in case of M. Ambalal Desai v. ITO [IT Appeal No. 1870 (AHD.) of 2015, dated 7-1-2021 wherein it was held as under: "7. We have considered the submission of both the parties and gone through the orders of Lower Authorities carefully. We have also deliberated on various case laws relied by the AR of the assessee. Before us, the AR of the assessee vehemently submitted that in assessee's co-owner case, the revenue has accepted similar Long Term Capital Gain in the scrutiny assessment. Copy of the assessment order in respect of two co-owners is placed on record. We have noted that no counter to the submission of the assessee, was made by DR that similar Long Term Capital Gain was accepted in case of co-owner. 8. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in ICT v. Kumararani Meenakshi Achi (supra) held that during the same assessment year same quantity of wealth in possession of co-sharer is subjected to a lower rate of taxation, it would be highly improper to burden a similarly situated co-sharer with a higher rate of tax. If such....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "3. On perusal of records and details submitted by the assessee it was found that the assessee was co-owner having share of 6.25% in the property sold for Rs. 2,00,00,001/- on 19-1-2009 situated at Survey No. 86, Lunsikui, Navsari. Value of property as per stamp duty valuation was determined at Rs. 4,09,01,000/-. The assessee has not declared capital gain as he has not filed Return of Income for AY 2009-10. The said property was inherited by the assessee. The assessee has submitted valuation report of the property from Govt. Approved Valuer who has arrived value of property at Rs. 66,61,020 as on 1-4-1981. The value of the assessee's share comes to Rs. 4,16,314. Indexed cost as per section 48 of the Act is worked out at Rs. 24,22,947/-. As per stamp duty authority the assessee's share being 6.25% of sale value in the property comes to Rs. 25,56,310/-. Thus capital gain comes to Rs. 1,33,363/-, which was taxable in the hands of the assessee. The capital gain of Rs. 1,33,363 has now been shown by the assessee in the Return of Income filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. However, the assessee has not declared suo moto Long Term Capital Gain as he has not fi....