9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 536X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A):- i. Erred while deleting the addition of Rs. 1,06,00,956/- made by the A.O. under the head 'Long Term Capital Gain' owing to the sale of land having Survey No.231/1, 207, 211,212 & 213 at Gram: Umaria, Tehsil: Mhow, Distirct; Indore. ii. Erred while placing undue reliance upon the report of Patwari, Rau thouigh the Anuvibhageeya Adhikari Rau has not endorsed the said report and merely forwarded the same without inking his/her specific remarks with regard to consent or dissent with the Patwari's report; and after considering the said report deleted the addition made by the A.O. iii. The appellant reserves the right to add, amend or alter the ground of appeal on or before th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. Ld. CIT(DR) vehemently supported order of the A.O. and submitted that Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition. He further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly appreciated the facts by coming to the conclusion that the said land did not fall within the Municipal limit. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has considered the notification governing the issue of asset being capital or not. 5. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that Ld. CIT(A) has considered the certificate of the revenue official who has categorically stated that the land in question do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal arising out of this order. 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the grounds merely on the basis that the assessee has succeeded on merit as the addition has been deleted. He submitted that the legal ground raised by the assessee goes to the route of the jurisdiction of the A.O. and the same ought to have been adjudicated. He further submitted that the revenue has grossly failed to furnish satisfaction recorded by the A.O. of the searched person. He submitted that in the recent judgement of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mechmen in ITA No.44/2011 dated 10.7.2015 has held that the satisfaction is to be recorded not only by the A.O. of the searched person but als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that the appeal against deletion of addition has been filed by the revenue in IT(SS)A No.81/Ind/2015. The assessee has raised cross objection regarding validity of the assessment. He reiterated the submissions as made before the Ld. CIT(A). 12. Ld. D.R. supported the order of the A.O. 13. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. In quantum appeal in IT(SS)A No.81/Ind/2015, we have already affirmed the view of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition. We therefore, do not see any reason to interfere in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A). The grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed. 14. In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
