Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 71 - AT - Income TaxDeletion of Additions - Unexplained Investments - purchase of plot on account of unexplained investment – Whether CIT(A) ought to have not admitted fresh evidences submitted by assessee which is against Rule 46 of Act - Held that:- additional evidence was not placed by assessee before assessing officer - Hence CIT(A) ought not to have admitted fresh evidences and should have followed procedure under Rule 46A - CIT(A) observed that during appeal proceedings, ld.AR filed copies of sale deed relevant bank statement and cash book to show that payments are duly recorded in books of account and properly explained - Here again, CIT(A) has violated provisions of Rule 46A - Set aside order of CIT(A) and restore matter to file of assessing officer and thereafter decide issues in accordance with law - Decided in favour of revenue. Estimation of ncome as a percentage of turnover, after rejecting the book results disclosed by the assessee - Held that:- CIT(A) has adopted the net profit rate of 8% for construction business following the consistent view taken by the Tribunal in similar cases - Decided against the revenue. Capital Gains - valuation - The owners got four flats along with appurtenant lands in lieu of sale consideration of flats which was partitioned between the co-owners. For registration purpose, the flats and appurtenants lands were valued at different rates depending upon the floors. This value has been wrongly taken as the sale value of the land transferred by the assessee to the developer by the assessing officer and the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition made by the assessing officer. - Decided against revenue. Exemption u/s 54F - whether the property purchased by the assessee was capable of being used as residential accommodation. - Held that:- no infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(A) as to the residential nature of the property purchased by the assessees, considering the factual aspects - Mere non residential use subsequently would not render the property ineligible for benefit u/s.54F, if it is otherwise a residential property, as held by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mahavir Prasad Gupta Vs JCIT [2005 (10) TMI 231 - ITAT DELHI-G]. - Decided against the revenue. Undisclosed investment - search and seizure was conducted on the premises of another person - additions, on the basis of cost of construction - assessees pleaded before the CIT(A) that the construction of Punnaiah Plaza was done as per MOU wherein the amount was contributed by various individuals/owners in certain ratio. - Held that:- The CIT(A) placed reliance on the third member decision of this Tribunal in the case of Rama Traders V/s, first ITO [1988 (2) TMI 142 - ITAT PATNA], wherein it was held that presumption provided in Section 132(4) is only in respect of persons from whose custody the document was seized and the presumption cannot be extended to third parties. - Decided against the revenue.
|