TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 719
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) has erred in partly deleting addition of Rs. 1,89,27,259/- without affording an opportunity to Revenue to examine the evidence submitted by assessee during course of appellate proceedings thereby violating provision of Rule 46A of IT Rules, when no evidences were submitted by the assessee during assessment proceedings. 3. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 12,24,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment without verifying the source of investment and also not calling for remand report from AO in this regard thereby violating provision of Rule 46A of IT Rules. 4. The appellant reserves right to add, alter or amend the grounds of appeal on or, before the date of disposal of appeal." 2. The factual matrix reported below as per Form 35 the CIT(A) has given relief on the ground of cash deposit holding as follows: "3.2 Adjudication of ground no.2(c); It is clear from above tables that appellant had sufficient cash withdrawals prior to cash deposits. The law well settled that assessee can show earlier cash receipts or withdrawals from bank account as source of subsequent cash deposits unless the revenue is a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 2,04,00,000/- and the source of making these FD's are also verified. However the AO has made the same addition 6 times. Basic enquiries regarding SFT information were not conducted by the AO with the bank, may be due to paucity of time. In the absence of any other information even as remand report, the appellant's contention that Time Deposits of only Rs. 2,04,00,000 was invested, have to be accepted. As the appellant has explained the source of this FD with bank statement, the addition u/s 69 is held to be unwarranted. As a result, ground no 2(d) is allowed." 4. There is no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) compelling us to take different view. As regards the ground of capital gain is concerned, we find that before the AO the following computation was submitted: "8. As per submission provided by the assessee, she has ciaimed Capital gains on sale of commercial properties as shown: 1. Commercial Property 25/10/2016 Value u/s 50C 13500000 Sales Consideration Received 13500000 13500000 Sales Consideration Less: Transfer Expenses 0 13500000 Less: i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hi in rejecting the claim of indexation and the amount spent on the flats sold during the year is bad in law, incorrectly made & against the fact of the case. 2. That the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) New Delhi has greatly erred in law and on facts of the case in:- a. Rejecting the claim of indexation and the amount spent claimed by the assessee in the Return of income Filed. b. Not appreciating the written submissions filed by the Assessee wherein the assessee in the submissions before the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) complete details of purchase and further payments made by the assessee. Documentary evidence of all payments made and purchase deeds were furnished along with the appeal. c. That the no opportunity to explain her case was allowed before the disposal of appeal with regard to disallowing the claim of the capital gain calculations submitted in the written submissions filed by the assessee. 3. That the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) is unfair, unjust and outside the scope of the law and natural justice. 4. That the appellant seeks permission to put forth detailed arguments and submissions before the Hon'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....medabad Bench ii. ITA No. 448/Ind/2013 Shri Sanjay Kumar Kamath V/s ACIT ITAT Indore Bench 10. The capital gain should be long term in nature, since, the property was held w.e.f 21.11.2009 and assessee has held the property for more than 36 months. The nature of capital gain is accordingly long term in nature. The very same issue was considered by the hon'ble Indore Bench in the case of Sanjay Kumar Kamath which has held as follows: "8. We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the orders of the authorities below and also deliberated on the judicial pronouncement cited by the ld. Senior DR with reference to the factual matrix of the case. Here, the question involves regarding right acquired by the assessee through allotment letter issued by the builder. Vide this allotment letter, the assessee was allotted Flat No.1202 at 12th Floor of Multi-storied building named as Raheja Tipco, Mumbai. Vide this allotment letter, builder M/s. K.Raheja Universal Pvt.Ltd, agreed to sell the flat to the assessee for Rs. 33,15,750/- besides other charges of Rs. 1,32,480/-. After signing the said letter of allotment and paying the booking amount, the assessee acquired the ri....