TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 865X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30/06/2009 which have already been placed on record by the assessee. Since according to the assessee, the said Rajinama dated 30/06/2009 was already filed before the A.O. and the cancellation deed was not available at that time with the assessee and after assessment, the assessee obtained a certified true copy of the cancellation deed from the Sub-Registrar, therefore, the case of the assessee is covered by Clause (c) of Rule 46A of the Rules. We are of the considered view that since the veracity of the registered cancellation deed dated 05/11/2009 has not been disputed by the revenue in any manner, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have admitted the said documents as additional evidence. Since ld. CIT(A) has not admitted the Registered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... celled as per Rajinama dt. 30.06.2009 and consequent cancellation deed dt. 05.11.2009 and the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition as against the short term capital loss of ₹ 9,50,520/-(25,00,000-36,50,520) claimed by the assessee. 1.1. Deciding the appeal without admitting the additional evidence filed by the assessee under rule 46A by way of cancellation deed dt. 05.11.2009 through which the sale deed dt. 19.05.2008 was cancelled by the Sub-Registrar. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in not deciding the ground of appeal relating to computation of short term capital gain of ₹ 3,69,000/- (20,00,000-16,31,000) in respect of property at 266/19, Sector-3, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted by the ld AR that initially the assessee could not place on record registered cancellation deed dated 05/11/2009 before the lower authorities i.e. the A.O. However, during the appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee had filed an application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short, the Rules) for admission of additional evidence by way of cancellation deed dated 05/11/2009 through which the sale deed dated 19/05/2008 was cancelled by the Sub-Registrar but the ld. CIT(A) did not accept the said application and rejected the same. 4. Now before us, the ld AR of the assessee has reiterated the same arguments as were raised before the ld. CIT(A) and drawn our attention to the application moved before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d be given by him while completing the proceedings of assessment and passing the assessment order. However on receipt of the assessment order the aforesaid fact of not giving any thought and necessary effect of this document, and quite illegally and imaging assessed by taking the transfer of the same property to two persons and taking the consideration mentioned in both the sale deeds as one transaction, and assessed the Short Term Capital Gain accordingly. Submission for admitting this evidence That neither the Ld. AO commented anything upon the evidence in the form of RAJINAMA for cancellation of nulling the sale deed in favour of Smt. Manju Gupta nor asked for any further evidence, the appellant being under a bonafide be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2008 was fraudulently executed by Shri Sunil Gupta, husband of Smt. Manju Gupta as Power of Attorney holder of the assessee and therefore, ultimately a Rajinama was executed between the parties for cancellation of the sale deed and the said Rajinama was dated 30/06/2009 which was placed on record before the A.O. as well as before the ld. CIT(A) and consequent to the said Rajinama, cancellation deed dated 05/11/2009 was got registered. It was submitted by the ld AR that neither the AO commented anything upon the evidence in the form of RAJINAMA for cancellation of nulling the sale deed in favour of Smt. Manju Gupta nor asked for any further evidence, the assessee being under a bonafide belief for submitting further evidence in this respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, in our view, the cancellation deed dated 05/11/2009 is a registered document and cancellation deed was followed by Rajinama dated 30/06/2009 which have already been placed on record by the assessee. Since according to the assessee, the said Rajinama dated 30/06/2009 was already filed before the A.O. and the cancellation deed was not available at that time with the assessee and after assessment, the assessee obtained a certified true copy of the cancellation deed from the Sub-Registrar, therefore, the case of the assessee is covered by Clause (c) of Rule 46A of the Rules. We are of the considered view that since the veracity of the registered cancellation deed dated 05/11/2009 has not been disputed by the revenue in any manner, therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
