9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 882X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perty in question does not belong to assessee, he has admitted that property belong to the family of Sh. Rambaksh. Hence addition amounting to Rs. 4,05,893/- as half share of capital gain in the hand of the assessee is bad in law and need to be deleted. (b) The calculation of long term capital gain is not as per law and against the facts of the case. The addition on that part need to be deleted. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) further specified that reopening of the case on account of cash deposit and not of sale of property. Thus addition on the score is also illegal and it is prayed that the assessment may be annulled. 5. The addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is not tenable and need to be quashed. The cash flow statement file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved as per the sale deeds is Rs. 23,50,000/-, but the cash actually deposited by the assessee in his bank account and the bank account of her daughter Kumari Poonam was Rs. 44,98,000/- i.e. Rs. 30,80,000 plus Rs. 14,90,000/-. Therefore, the difference between sale consideration and the total amount deposited Rs. 21,48,000/- (Rs. 44,98,000 less Rs. 23,50,000) stands remain unexplained. Accordingly, the AO held that the total sale consideration received by the assessee during the FY 2008-09 is Rs. 25,50,000/- although the cash deposited by him in his own account and the account of his daughter is Rs. 44,98,000/-. Therefore, the balance Rs. 19,48,000/- (Rs. 44,98,000 less Rs. 25,50,000) remains unexplained and added to the income of the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot of sale property. Thus addition on the score is also illegal and prayed that the assessment may be annulled. It was further submitted that the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- is not tenable, because in the cash flow statement filed was duly explained. He further submitted that after selling of the pot the assessee was also purchased another plot, on the basis of this deduction u/s. 54F ought to be allowed but the same was not allowed by the AO. The AO does not have any tangible material and information was totally based on AIR. Nothing was shown in the reason required to be recorded, he does not have any concrete material in his reasons. In support of his contention, he relied upon the case laws:- - Amr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of the assessee and has taken action u/s. 147/148 against the assessee. Hence, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed this ground, which does not need any interference on my part, therefore, we uphold the same and reject the ground raised by the assessee. 5.1 As regards addition of Rs. 4,05,893/- is concerned, I find that the plot has been registered in the name of Ram Baksh who is father of the assessee. Similarly, the sale deed has been executed by Ram Bakh and his son Sita Ram. From these documents, it is clear that the ownership in the property was of Ram Bakh and in the sale deed only the name of the assessee is there as second party. In the Affidavit of Assessee's father has claimed that impugned property (Plot) belonged to HUF and got m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
