TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 1774
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Assessing Officer. 3. On the other hand, the ld AR of the assessee has relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A). 4. The Bench have heard both the sides on this issue. The ld. CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee by holding as under: "3.2.1 Determination (i) In this ground of appeal, it was stated by the appellant that the deceased appellant had not sold plot no. 55B, Hathi Babu Ka Bagh, Station Road, Jaipur for Rs. 45 Lac and the said property was sold by Smt. Gyanwati Dhakhar and the deceased appellant was just a सहमतिकर्ता through power of attorney of Shri Madan Gopal Khatri. In support of its claim, a copy of registered sale deed dated 30.08.2007 wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the property under consideration for which addition has been made in the assessment order.'' (iii) Vide its report dated 23.02.2017 received in this office on 27/02/2017. it was submitted by the AO that: "Kindly refer to your letter No. 2005 dated 15.02.2017 requiring to submit documentary evidences, on the basis of which, it has been held that the appellant has sold the property under consideration for which addition has been made in the assessment order. At the outset, it is submitted that the case of Late Smt. Seema Mukherjee for A.Y. 2008-09 was completed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of information available on record. Addition of Rs. 87,75,759/- was made on account of LTCTG for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee's onus to prove all the facts of the case during the assessment proceedings in which assessee's legal heirs have utterly failed. It is, therefore, humbly requested that the contention of the assessee should not be accepted and additions be upheld." (iv) As inadvertently, copy of the income tax return of Smt. Gyanwati Dhakhar for AY 2007-08, as obtained from the concerned AO, could not be enclosed with the above referred letter, a copy of the same was also provided to the AO. Vide its remand report dated 28/02/2017 it was further submitted by the AO that: "In continuation of this office letter No. 2700 dated 23.02.2017, it is submitted that the reopened case of Late Smt. Seema Mukherjee was com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ा in the said sale deed is nothing but a colorable statement in the deed to hide the fact that Gyanwati Dhakhar sold the property as power of attorney holder of Late Smt. Seema Mukherjee. It was further submitted that the real seller was Late Smt. Seema Mukherjee and accordingly, the addition had rightly been made to the income of Late Smt. Seema Mukherjee. (vi) I have duly considered the assessment order, remand report of the AO and the material placed on record. It is noted from the registered sale deed dated 30.08.2007 that the property under consideration was sold by Smt. Gyanwati Dhakhar in its own capacity and not as power of attorney holder of Late Smt. Seema Mukherjee, as claimed by the AO in its remand report. The co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....09 that while computing the capital gains, she had declared sale consideration at Rs. 45 Lac and had shown long term capital gain at Rs. 1,83,143/-. It was the contention of the AO that it could not be verified that the sale consideration shown is related to the property under consideration. It is matter of fact that in the registered sale deed dated 30.08.2007, the sale consideration was stated at Rs. 45 Lac only and in the computation of capital gains, Smt. Gyanwati Dhakar has stated the sale consideration at Rs. 45 lac only. (viii) Even otherwise, independent of the computation of income of Smt. Gyanwati Dhakar for the AY 2008-09, it is evident that the property was not sold by the appellant as the AO has failed to brought on re....