9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed without issuing of notice/chance to the appellant for providing cogent reasons, which in the opinion of the Ld. CIT(A) were necessary to satisfy him for considering the additional grounds while passing the above order. The above act of not giving a fair chance to the appellant before rejecting the additional grounds for appearance is erroneous, illegal and unwarranted and bad in law and must be quashed with specific directions not giving a fair chance. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in not holding that: a) The reopening of the assessment by issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act was illegal and bad in law. On the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat he has erred in issuing notice u/s. 143(2) and asking filing of documents before filing of return of income in response to notice under section 148 thereby making the whole of the re-assessment proceedings illegal and need to be quashed. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in upholding the addition of Rs. 4,80,000/- out of addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- by Ld. AO being long term capital gains on sale of shares of M/s. Lotus Technosoft Pvt. Ltd. and failed in determining actual date of sale of shares and considering the follow-up agreement to sale over original sale agreement is erroneous, illegal and unwarranted and must be quashed with specific directions for appropriate relief to the appellant. 6. That ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he proceedings. The Assessing Officer noticed that on going through the deed of exchange in shareholding it was found that out of Rs. 1,83,00,000/- Rs. 1,58,00,000/- was paid by new management in the account of the company for repayment of loan of outgoing management for construction of plot required to be completed by 30.06.2009 and Rs. 25,00,000/- was paid to the company for relinquishment of share holding of 20% by Shri Amit Oberoi. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was of the view that Rs. 5,00,000/- was paid to the assessee which the assessee had not disclosed. Hence, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- and assessed the income of the assessee at R. 35,70,360/- against the returned income of Rs. 30,70,360/-. 4. Aggriev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erused the material on record. The assessee has not filed any evidence in support of the allegation that he was not given opportunity before transfer of jurisdiction u/s. 127 of the Act. In the absence of such evidence I do not see any merit in the ground raised by the assessee. Accordingly, ground no. 3 is dismissed. 10. Ground no. 4 is against issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) before filing of return of income in response to the notice u/s. 148. Learned DR submitted that the objection of the assessee is misplaced as from the record it may be verified that notice u/s. 148 was issued on 30.3.2017 and notice u/s. 143(2) was issued on 13.9.2017. It is recorded by the Assessing Officer that in response to notice dated 8.9.2017, the authorized re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d as per the submissions of Ld. AR it was partly complied as the final consideration of Rs. 20,000/- towards sale of shares was received by the appellant at the time of completion of agreement i.e. change of name of new investors in the records of Noida Authority took place on 26.06.2009 vide deed of change in share holding duly executed on this date. A perusal of above registered deed of change in share holding pattern reveals that the Board of Directors of M/s. Lotus Technosoft Private Limited authorized the appellant to transfer the shares of the company vide Board Resolution dated 18.04.2009. Further the appellant along with the other share holders (transferors) moved an application on to the Noida Authority for change in constitution/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le of shares pertains to A.Y 2010-11 when the change in share holding pattern got registered, appellant transferred the shares vide transfer deed 20.04.2009, and resigned from the directorship of the company vide resignation letter dated 20.04.2009. Thus no interference is called for to the addition made by the AO bringing to tax the amount of Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 5(sic)JD0,000/-. In the submissions it has been stated that the benefit of cost of acquisition and indexation has not been allowed while taxing the Long Term Capital Gain. Though it has been claimed that benefit of cost of acquisition and indexing is allowed, Ld. AR has failed to furnish any supporting evidence with regard to the above submissions. Therefore Assessing Off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
