TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for expenses by her husband who is assessed to tax - Held that:- It strange that said submission of assessee is brushed aside without calling for any report in the matter from the Assessing Officer regarding the genuineness of the assessee’s claim as to the source of these cash deposits. Matter remitted to file of AO - Decided in favor of assessee for statistical purposes. Unexplained cash deposits - - I.T.A. No.296/Bang/2011 - - - Dated:- 31-5-2012 - SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, JJ. Appellant By : Shri R. Chandrashekar. Respondent By : Shri B. Saravanan. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Bangalore dated 4.3.2011 for the Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as under : The assessee, an individual, employed as Stenographer with the office of the Accountant General (A E), Bangalore filed her return of income for Assessment Year 2008-09 on 17.7.2008 declaring total income at Rs. 79,410. On the basis of AIR information, that the assessee had in the relevant period sold a property measuring 30 x 40 Sq. ft. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned Assessing Officer of Rs. 1,77,000 under other sources in respect of deposits in Savings Bank A/c., ignoring the explanation and also withut considering whether the circumstances of the appellant s case warrants such an addition, keeping in view that the appellant is an employee in the office of the Accountant Generals Office and has to other source of income. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions, which are unwarranted and excessive. 7. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of interest under section 234B of the Act, since the additions made to returned income are not in the nature of current income, which are to be considered for the purposes of computation of Advance Tax. 4. The grounds of appeal raised at S.Nos.1 and 6 are general in nature and therefore no adjudication is called for thereon. 5. The ground raised at S.No.7 in respect of charging of interest is consequential and mandatory and the Assessing Officer has no discretion in the matter. In this view of the matter, the Assessing Officer s action is held to be in order. 6.1 In the grounds raised at S.Nos.2 to 4, the assessee challenges the CIT(A) s action in confirmin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sold a 30x40 sq. ft property for a consideration of Rs. 8 lakhs as per sale deed dt.3.7.2007 whereas the guideline value of the property for stamp duty purposes was Rs. 26,40,000. The assessee s contention that the Assessing Officer should have issued notice and given an opportunity to the assessee before invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Act is, in our view, not tenable. On this point, we are in agreement with the learned Departmental Representative that there is no requirement in the Act for the Assessing Officer to put the assessee on notice before invoking the provisions of section 50C. However, a careful reading of the provisions of section 50C of the Act and more particularly sub-section (2) thereof holds relevance in the instant case and therefore it would be in the fitness of things that the provisions of the section be reproduced hereunder for the sake of clarity. 50C (1) (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), where (a) the assessee claims before any Assessing Officer that the value adopted or assessed [ or assessable ] by the stamp valuation authority under sub-section (1) exceeds the fair market value of the property as on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss provisions of section 50C(2)(a) of the Act of making a reference to the Valuation Officer for valuation of the property and the learned CIT(A) is not directing him to do so when the matter was in appeal, in our opinion, have by such action denied the assessee her right to have the property valued by the Valuation Officer of the Income Tax Department. We are of the considered opinion that this action by the Assessing Officer is violative of the provisions of section 50C(2) of the Act. Since this goes to the very root of the matter in the instant case, we, in the interest of justice and equity remit the issue of computation of LTCG on sale of property by the assessee on 3.7.2007 to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration by making a reference to the Valuation Officer of the Income Tax Department to value the said property and to compute the LTCG after receipt of the Valuation Report of the said property. The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Assessing Officer and the valuation cell of the Department to get the valuation carried out expeditiously. 7.1 The ground of appeal raised at S.No.5 challenges the action of the learned CIT(A) in confirming ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
