9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1948X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the ground against initiation of proceedings u/s.147 without appreciating the fact that the notice u/s.148 is issued when there is time to issue 142( 1) calling for return of income and thereby ought to have held the proceedings initiated u/s.147 is void abintio. 3. The learned CIT erred in dismissing the additional ground raised to adopt the rate invoking provisions of Sec.50C as on the date of agreement without appreciating the fact that it is a legal ground that there is estoppel on a question of law and that the powers of the CIT(A) are co-terminus with that of the AO and therefore ought to have admitted the additional ground and ought to have passed orders on the same. 4. The learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sidered the same as sale value and after computing the cost of acquisition, he arrived at the net long term capital gain of Rs. 64,65,737. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A) stating that there was an oral agreement between the assessee and the vendees for the sale of property and the assessee has received the advances as on 1.7.2011 and therefore, the SRO value as on 1.7.2011 should be considered and not the SRO value on the date of execution of sale deed i.,e. 7.10.2011. This contention was raised as an additional ground of appeal by the assessee. The CIT (A) however, did not admit the additional ground of appeal and confirmed the additions made by the AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in second appeal before us. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 2015 w.e.f. 1.4.2007 is retrospective in nature. The assessee has also filed additional evidence in the form of Bank statement to demonstrate that the assessee has received part of the sale consideration much prior to the date of the sale deed. 6. The learned DR, however, opposed the admission of the additional ground of appeal and also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Paramjit Singh vs. ITO reported in 323 ITR 588 (P&H) in support of her contention that the oral evidence is not admissible. 7. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that the assessee's contention that the assessee has received part of the sale consideration much prior to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
