TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 289X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 2.58 crores - we find that the assessee was not given an opportunity to cross examine the purchaser. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of authorities below and remit the matter back to the file of the AO to reconsider and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law by affording an opportunity to the assessee for cross examination of the purchaser before the Assessing Officer. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. - I.T.A. No. 114/Chny/2022 - - - Dated:- 30-11-2022 - Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member And Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri R.S. Balaji, Advocate And Shri B. Sakthivel, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT ORDER PE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2016 and the omissions are erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Accordingly, the ld. PCIT set aside the assessment order and directed the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration and passing of necessary order in accordance with law. Accordingly, by issuing notices under section 143(2) and under section 142(1) of the Act and considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act dated 05.12.2016 by assessing the total income of the assessee at ₹ 1,22,82,577/- after making addition towards long term capital gain at ₹ 70,22,500/- and income from other sources interest income at ₹ 60,077/- and unexplained cash deposits of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee has not furnished any evidence for having received money from the purchaser Shri Parthasarathy, the Assessing Officer treated the cash deposit of ₹ 52 lakhs as unexplained cash deposit and brought to tax. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition. 8. On perusal of the assessment order, we find that in the sworn statement, it was stated by the assessee that the total sale consideration was ₹ 2.58 crores against the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed of ₹ 1.54 crores. We also find that the Assessing Officer has summoned the purchaser Shri D. Parthasarathy and recorded his statement, which reveals that the purchaser has paid only ₹ 1,54,21,000/- only as recorded in the sale deed and not the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
