Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 60 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAMComputation of capital gains - FMV determination - SRO value as per section 50C should be adopted while computing the capital gains - HELD THAT:- AO has merely relied on the loose sheets seized during the search operations. AO also failed to record any corroborative evidences in his findings with respect to the additions made by him. The fact that the advance received by the assessee is mentioned in the sale deed entered into by the assessee was ignored by the Ld. AO. AO has merely relied on the date of registration of sale deed while making the addition u/s. 50C of the Act which was registered during December, 2016 and January, 2017. Since the agreement to sell has been entered into as early as March 2016, and the consideration agreed and advance of Rs. 80,00,000/- has been received by the assessee, the delay in registering the sale deed, and in the mean time increase in the value for the purposes of Section 50C, shall not alter the agreed consideration. CIT(A) has rightly considered the advances received by the assessee during March 2016 for the sale of 4 plots and accordingly has directed the Ld. AO to adopt the Fair Market Value as on the date of the agreement between the assessee and the vendees. We are therefore in concurrence with the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) and find that no interference is required in the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and this ground no.2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. CIT(A) violated the provisions of Rule 46A by not providing an opportunity to the Ld. AO to examine the fresh evidence - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) in his order has observed that the advance amount was recorded in the sale deeds which was available before the Ld. AO at the time of assessment proceedings. In the absence of any additional evidence filed before the Ld. CIT(A), we find that there is no requirement of complying with the provisions of Rule 46A by the Ld. CIT (A) and hence we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has acted within his powers. Addition towards alleged on-money - AO has relied on the loose sheets as per the screen shot available - HELD THAT:- We find that the loose sheets, extracted as screen shot in the Ld. AO’s order, are undated and no details like date of payment or to whom the amount was paid is not mentioned in the loose sheets. Further, the sale deeds executed by the assessee clearly mentions the consideration received and admitted by the assessee while filing the return of income. - We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has relied on the various judicial pronouncements and has deleted the addition made by the Ld. AO in the absence of any corroborative evidence brought in by the Ld. AO. We therefore are of the view that no interference is required in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this ground. Addition as Black Money received - AO has relied on the dumb document while making additions - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) again relying on the jurisdictional Bench in the case of Badam Bhogalinga Swamy & Others [2021 (6) TMI 247 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM] has correctly deleted the addition and hence we find no reason to interfere in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this ground. Revenue appeal dismissed.
|