TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 892
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Officer ('AO') u/s. 143(3) of the IT Act dt. 18-12-2018, is not in accordance with the fact and provisions of law. Without prejudice to the above grounds, 2. Ld.AO, while making an observation in his order stating that assessee declared the capital gains from sale deeds listed in S no 1 to 10 therein, erred in including a document no. 3923/2015 dt.17-08-2016 (listed by him at S.no 10 at pg 2 & 3 of AO order), which sale pertain to the subsequent FY 2016-17 and not the Impugned year being FY 2015-16. 3. Whereas, in fact, after removing the said incorrect document no. 3923/2015dt.17-08-2016 from the list stated by AO and adding the correct Doc no 3495/2015 dt.23-07-2015 (mentioned at S.no 13 by AO in his order), the total amount works out to Rs. 56,25,000/- which matches with the total sale consideration declared by assessee in his ITR filed for the impugned FY, considering this, the observation made by Ld.AO stating that assessee failed to declare capital gains pertaining to Document no 3495/2015 dt.23-07-2015(mentioned at S.no 13 by AO in his order) -is factually incorrect. 4. The Learned CIT(A) by virtue of order passed u/s 250 of the IT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der: S. No Date of Transaction Doc No PAN of Transacting Party Transaction Amount 1 06-10-2015 2650 CSNPP9655H 500000 2 06-10-2015 2651 CSNPP9655H 500000 3 06-11-2015 2681 CSNPP9655H 500000 4 06-12-2015 2734 CSNPP9655H 500000 5 15/06/2015 2749 CSNPP9655H 500000 6 09-10-2015 4567 CSNPP9655H 800000 7 09-11-2015 4580 CSNPP9655H 600000 8 09-11-2015 4581 CSNPP9655H 600000 9 25-05-2015 2361 CSNPP9655H 375000 10 17-08-2016 3923 CSNPP9655H 749000 5624000 11 22/05/2015 2327 CSNPP9655H 375000 12 25/05/2015 2360 CSNPP9655H 912000 13 23/07/2015 3495 CSNPP9655H 750000 However, it was observed by him that the assessee had disclosed the sale transactions of only ten properties aggregating to Rs. 56,24,000/- in his books of accounts. The AO called upon the assessee to explain as to why the suppressed sale consideration of Rs. 20,37,000/- may not be assessee as undisclosed sale proceeds. As the assessee failed to come forth with any explanation, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tains to an A.O.P. in which he is only a member. Despite making this claim, no documentary evidence has been submitted to show the relationship between the assessee and the A.O.P. whereas the property has been registered on the PAN of the appellant as per the assessment order. Since the property has been registered on individual PAN of the appellant, the sale consideration belongs to the appellant if otherwise not proved with evidences. Hence, the addition made by the AO is upheld. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed." 5. The assessee, aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 6. We have heard the Learned Authorized Representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the authorities below and the material available on record. 7. Shri Arjun M Solaki, CA, Learned Authorized Representative (for short, "Ld. AR") for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing of the appeal, submitted that the appeal involved a delay of 191 days. Elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay, the Ld. AR submitted that the same had crept in for the reason that the assessee, an aged pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wrong years, viz., Document No.3923 (Sl. No.10) and Document No.3495 (Sl. No.13); (ii) duplication of the sale transactions, viz., Document No.2361 (Sl. No.9) and Document No.2327 (Sl. No.11); and (iii) inclusion of only the proportionate share of the assessee as a co-owner in the transaction, viz, Document No.2360 (Sl. No.12). Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had duly included the transactions stated at Sl. Nos. 1 to 10 aggregating to Rs. 56.25 lakhs [subject to wrong inclusion of transaction of Document No.3923 (Sl. No.10) instead of Document No.3495 (Sl. No.13)]. The Ld. AR submitted that if the aforesaid wrong inclusion of Sl. No.13 (instead of Sl. No.10) is considered, then the transactions for the subject year reflected by the assessee at Rs. 56.24 lakhs are duly reconciled. The Ld. AR had thereafter taken us through the respective transactions which are being considered by us while adjudicating the present appeal. 11. Per contra, the Ld. Sr-DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 12. We have heard the Learned Authorized Representatives of both parties and perused the material available on record. As the controversy invol....