TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 986
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....operty as against the long term capital loss of Rs. 5,37,729/- claimed by the Appellant without cogent reasons as to why he is not accepting the favourable report of the Assessing Officer. 3. The learned CIT (A) erred in dismissing the ground with respect to salary income of Rs. 74,78,627/- without appreciating the fact that the Appellant has already offered the same to tax in the return of income filed in response to the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that dismissing the ground would result in taxing the salary twice. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the ground with respect to commission income of Rs. 3,26,610/- without appreciating the fact that the same was already offered as income under the head 'income from other sources' by the Appellant in the return filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that dismissing the ground would result in taxing the commission income twice. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in taking a contrary view from that of the Assessing Officer in the remand report without cogent and compelling reasons.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee, the addition sustained by the learned CIT (A) be deleted. 4. On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that the assessee has filed only an agreement for construction of the house without any supporting evidence to show that the construction was completed and incurrence of the development charges and other construction cost as claimed by the assessee. The assessee has also not corroborated the claim by filing the documentary evidence such as vouchers for payment, purchase of material etc. He has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. The learned DR has pointed out that the assessee did not file any return of income u/s 139 as well as in response to the notice issued u/s 148 of the I.T. Act. Therefore, nothing was filed before the Assessing Officer in support of these claims. The return was filed only at the fag end of the limitation for passing the assessment order. 5. We have considered the rival contentions as well as the relevant material available on record. Undisputedly, the assessee has not filed any return of income u/s 139 of the Act. On the basis of the information that the assessee has entered into significant financial transaction to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der consideration. As a remand report has to be submitted to the CIT(A), a letter was addressed to the assessee calling for information in support of documents / information filed before the Ld. CIT(A). In response, the assessee furnished information which are discussed as under: 1. Purchase of Motor Vehicle - Rs. 21,13,478/- The assessee submitted that he has purchased the motor vehicle during the year sourced out of a loan of Rs. 15 lakhs taken from Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited, and the balance payment of Rs.6, 13,478/- was made out of accumulated savings arising out of salary income. The assessee furnished the bank sanction letter and repayment schedule. The same was verified and found to be in order. 2. Sale of Immovable Property - Rs. 37,50,000/- The assessee furnished the following information with regard to the sale of immovable property: 1. Proof for the sale of immovable property of Rs. 37,50,000/- 2. Copy of the document for the purchase of land of Rs. 1,17,000/- 3. Copy of the agreement for construction of house at Rs. 27,00,000/- On perusal of the information furnished, it is observed that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e incurred. In view of the absence of substantiating evidence, the appellant's claim for the development charges and construction costs is found not tenable. The AO is directed to recompute the capital gains arising from the sale of the immovable property by disallowing the development charges and other construction costs of Rs. 25,83,000/- claimed by the appellant. Thus, this ground of appeal stands dismissed. 7. Thus, the learned CIT (A) has pointed out that the assessee has not filed any corroborative evidence such as completion certificate, voucher of payment for purchase of material and details of the persons. At the same time, the Assessing Officer in his remand report has stated that the copies of the documents furnished has been verified with reference to the computation of capital gain/loss and found to be in order. Ignoring this report of the Assessing Officer who has verified the documents, the learned CIT (A) has confirmed the addition in the absence of corroborative evidence such as completion certificate, vouchers of the payments, etc., Now the assessee has filed the additional evidence in the shape of completion certificate, receipt of the builder and loan cer....