TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Appellate Tribunal did not deal with the aspect as to the adjudication done under Section 47 (A) (1) of the Indian Stamp Act. As appears from the materials placed in the form of additional typed set of documents dated 04.03.2020 filed by the appellant / assessee that challenging the adjudication done by the Special Deputy Collector, Salem, dated 19.08.2011, further appeal was filed under Section 47 (A) (5) of the Indian Stamp Act before the Chief Commissioner (Stamp), Salem and the value of the site fixed at ₹ 545 per sq.ft has been increased to ₹ 600 per sq.ft and it was also complied with. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said order passed by the statutory authority would definitely have a bearing on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 53-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short IT Act ] dated 09.04.2015 declaring a total income of ₹ 8,88,420/- and agricultural income of ₹ 12,500/- and the said notice was proceeded by a Search under Section 132 of the IT Act, which was conducted in the business premises of the assessee on 22.05.2014 and during the course of search, the Executive Diary maintained by the assessee for the year 2008 was seized on 22.05.2014 and the relevant entries found are extracted below: HOUSE MD 50,00,000 BANK 34,00,000 7,00,000 Total 91,00,000 Total Registration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount of unexplained investment in the purchase of property and he had admitted undisclosed income in the form of on-money payment for purchase of property and further taken into consideration the retraction statement in the form of letter dated 26.10.2016 and also placing reliance upon [2018] 99 taxmann.com 39 (Madras) (cited supra), has confirmed the order of the CIT (Appeals). 5. The assessee, after the disposal of the appeal, filed M.P.No.290 of 2019 under Section 254(2) of the IT Act as to the non-consideration of Ground Nos.7 and 8 and the said Miscellaneous Petition has also ended in dismissal vide order dated 20.01.2020. The assessee aggrieved by the said order and making challenge to the same, had filed these appeals. 6. The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntire addition of unaccounted investment under Section 69 of Income Tax Act in the hands of the appellant, when the appellant was only holding 50% interest as co-owner of the said house property? Addition u/s 39 f) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the addition of unaccounted investment u/s.69 of Income Tax Act, 1961 made without any corroborative evidences as brought out above? g) whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in dismissing the Miscellaneous Petition filed for rectification of mistake apparent on record u/s.254(2) of Income tax Act, 1961 for want to adjudication o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing for the appellant that it is also open to the Revenue to make an independent assessment of the immovable property purchased by the assessee, by the valuers and even the said exercise has not been done and hence prays for interference. 8. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue would submit that admittedly the appellant / assessee did not dispute the maintenance of the diary as well as particular entry made in the diary and the only requirement is the voluntary statement given under Section 132 (4) of the IT Act as well as retraction statement in the form of letter, have to be taken into consideration and the Assessing Officer has also done that exercise and even in the retraction letter dated 26.10.2016, the adjudicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n done by the authorities below and despite the fact that specific ground has been raised before the CIT (Appeals) as well as before the ITAT, the said grounds have not been considered and adjudicated. Therefore, the following substantial question of law raises for consideration: Whether the order of CIT (appeals) dated 01.03.2019, as confirmed by the impugned order of ITAT dated 08.11.2019, as to the non consideration of adjudication done under Section 47 (A) (1) of the Indian Stamp Act as well as adjudication done by the Chief Revenue Officer / Inspector General of Registration, Chennai 28 in the appeal filed under Section 47 (A) (5) of the Indian Stamp Act, is sustainable in law? 12. In the considered opinion of this Court, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
