TMI Blog2002 (11) TMI 285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as (a) there was no fresh material on record to justify the action of the AO, (b) there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose the necessary facts; and (c) the alleged statement of Shri Kundanlal given at the back of assessee is inadmissible as the same was never brought to the notice of the assessee. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant had not filed the income-tax return in this case. The AO, therefore, issued notice under s. 148, dt. 4th Aug., 1986, in response to which the assessee filed return on 9th Feb., 1987, showing loss of Rs. 5,16,258. The assessment was made on a positive income of Rs. 11,24,540 by the then AO, Dy. CIT (Asstt.), Special Range, Jodhpur. The matter came up in appeal before the le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsideration by Rs. 1,00,000 for the purpose of levy of stamp duty. In this case the assessment had been completed under s. 143(3) r/w s. 148. The AO had contended that there was failure on the part of the appellant to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment of this year. On the other hand, the learned authorised representative has contended that this information was already on record. In this case last assessment was completed on 24th Oct., 1990. The date of enhancement of sale consideration for the purpose of levy of stamp duty had neither been mentioned by the authorised representative nor by the AO and actual date of receipt of information is also not known. Therefore, the AO is directed to verify from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestion falls for consideration in the asst. yr. 1982-83 and no assessment can be made for the asst. yr. 1985-86. Therefore, the assessment order passed by the AO for asst. yr. 1985-86 is invalid in the eye of law. Therefore, the addition made by the AO is hereby deleted. 11. Ground No. 3: Sustenance of addition on the basis of order of stamp duty. The appellant agitated on the ground that the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,00,000 on the basis of the order passed in stamp duty case, particularly when there is no evidence of any payment over and above shown in the sale deed. 12. We have heard the rival parties. We have also perused the facts of the case. The brief facts of the case are that in this case the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
