9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 43,70,000/- on account of unexplained investment u/s 69C of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. (a) The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts. (b) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/all of the ground of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal." 3. As regards to the issue agitated by the department in Ground No. 1, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this issue is covered by the order dated 26.10.2010 of this Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA No. 1747/Del/2009 for the assessment year 2006-07 (copy of the said order was furnished which is plac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de by the Assessing Officer, it will meet the ends of justice if the disallowance is made to the extent of 10% of dividend income because considering the smallness of amount in dispute, we do not feel it fruitful to restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision as we are doing in other cases where the stakes are high. We, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance to 10% of dividend income." 6. In the present case also, the ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the extent of 10% of the income while the AO made the disallowance by invoking the provisions of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, which is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hing adverse was noticed from the reply of the parties from whom the enquiries were conducted by the AO and in fact they confirmed that the transaction of the sale of the properties is at the purchase price shown by the appellant. He further held that the provision of section 50C for that relevant year applied in the hands of the seller and not the buyer. In the present case the assessee is a buyer. Hence, he stated that income cannot be added in the hands of the assessee by invoking provision of section 50C of the Act. He further examined that provision of section 56(1)(vii)(b) of the Act is not applicable as it applies w.e.f. 01.04.2014. The ld DR also could not point out any infirmity in the order of the ld CIT(A). We are also of the con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
