TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1380
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er section 143(2) and 143(1) of the Act were also issued and the Assessing Officer completed the assessment at Rs. 32,08,950/- by making addition of Rs. 15,76,541/- on account of Long/Short Term Capital Gain Rs. 78,827/- on account of commission @ 5% on the capital gains and Rs. 2,75,488/- being difference in Valuation Report of the District Valuation Officer on immovable property. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee approached the ld. First Appellate Authority. However, the appeal before the ld. First Appellate Authority came to be dismissed. 4. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal, challenging the dismissal of its appeal by the ld. CIT(A) by raising the following grounds of appeal: 01. Because the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the AO's action in denying the appellant's claim for exemption under section 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and Special rate of taxation under section 111 in relation to the surplus realized on sale of shares held by him and holding the same as unexplained investment in cash and in making the addition of Rs. 15,76,541/- (Rs.6,42,879/- and Rs. 9,33,662/-) to taxable income under section 69 of the Act. 02. Be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he AO to the DVO for estimating the investment by the appellant in construction of the residential house, the addition of Rs. 2,75,488/- made on the basis of DVO's report is wholly illegal, the action of the CIT(A) upholding the same is bad in law and be deleted. 08. Because on a proper consideration of facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the District Valuation Officer has estimated the cost of construction as per CPWD rates as against PWD rates, the difference in the estimate made by the Distt. Valuation Officer is contrary to the provisions of law and be deleted. 09. Because the Distt. Valuation Officer has failed to consider the objections filed by the assessee as provided by the approved valuer, the valuation report prepared by the Distt. Valuation Officer being bad in law, the addition made and upheld by the CIT(A) be deleted. 5. The assessee has also raised the following Additional Ground of appeal: 1. Because the approval given by the JCIT u/s 153D of the Act, 1961 to the order passed, u/s 153A is without application of mind, purely in a mechanical manner, without appreciating the facts and not follo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ra) of the Tribunal, the Department had filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, vide ITA No.86 of 2022, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 12.12.2022. He prayed that the same view, as taken by the Tribunal in assessment year 2015-16, be taken in the assessment year under consideration too. 10. The ld. CIT(D.R.) expressed his inability to argue the matter and submitted that he was on rotational duty and that the appeal under consideration was related to search and that further CIT on rotation duty as DRs were not authorized to argue search related cases before the Tribunal in view of the internal guidelines issued by the Department. 11. Having duly considered the submissions of the ld. CIT(DR) and his inability to argue the appeal before us on the ground that he was on rotational duty, we deem it appropriate to proceed with the adjudication of the appeal without the assistance of the ld. CIT(DR) for the simple reason that the claim of the ld. AR is that the appeal of the assessee is covered by an earlier order of the ITAT in assessee's own case. 12. We have heard the contentions of the ld. AR and have also perused the records.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n ITA No.669/LKW/2018 for assessment year 2016-17 are as under: 01. Because the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the addition of Rs. 10,95,000/- on account of cash found during the course of search & seizure operation on 31.08.2015, which addition is contrary to facts, bad in law and be deleted. 02. Because the cash found at the time of search was made up of the following: (a) Cash belonged to Kanpur Organics Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 9,00,000/- (b) Other sums with household. Rs. 1,95,000/- The explanation being fully verifiable, no such addition as having been made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A), could have been made either on facts and in law, the same be deleted. 03. Because the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in not appreciating the facts, the explanation, submissions and evidences filed by the assessee and has thereby erred in upholding the addition, the addition made be deleted. 18. In this appeal also, the assessee has raised similar additional ground, as raised in ITA No.667/LKW/2018, which is reproduced hereinabove in para 5 of this order. 19. Since issue and the facts involved in ITA No.669/LKW/2018....