TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 603X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear that the issue raised before the ld.CIT(A) was restricted to the deduction claimed and the assessee has not stated that the agricultural land sold by the assessee is not a capital asset within the meaning of Income Tax Act. In our view, the order of ld.CIT(A) is in accordance with the authoritative pronouncement of Ganta Vijaya Lakshmi [ 2014 (4) TMI 1226 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] and therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. - ITA No.262/Hyd/2020 - - - Dated:- 21-12-2022 - Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar. For the Revenue : Shri Kumar Adithya. ORDER PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M. The appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2017-18 arises from the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Hyderabad dt.06.02.2020 invoking proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act ). 2. The grounds raised by the assessee reads as under : 1. The Order of the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax, in so far as it is against the appellant, is contrary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing Officer had completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 23.12.2019 interalia by making an addition of Rs.46,20,000/- towards capital gain. 4. Feeling aggrieved with the order of Assessing Officer, assessee carried the matter before ld.CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of assessee. 5. Feeling aggrieved with the order of ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before us. 6. Before us, ld. AR submitted that while filing the appeal, assessee had inadvertently omitted to raise a ground against the action of the Assessing Officer in expanding the scope of scrutiny assessment and that the said ground being a legal ground, all the facts relating to the issue are borne out of the order of assessment and prayed to admit the same. Ld. AR further submitted that the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) vide its Instruction no 05/2016 dt 14th July 2016 had clarified and laid down Standard Operating Procedure for handling cases under limited scrutiny which were selected through CASS Cycle 2015. Ld.AR further relied on the following decisions in support of his case : Shri Sagar Uttam Murhe Vs. DCIT, Circle 8, Pune in ITA Nos. 1615 1329/Pun/2018. CIT Vs. Padmavathi in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. Before us, ld. AR sought for admission for additional grounds stating that the same are legal grounds which are raised against the action of Assessing Officer in expanding the scope of scrutiny assessment. On perusal of the order of Assessing Officer, we found that Assessing Officer had restricted the case to limited scrutiny under CASS for verification of cash deposits into the bank account of assessee and the other issue of claim of deduction by the assessee u/s 54F was interlinked with the core issue. While doing so, Assessing Officer had sought various details besides the source for the cash deposits. The issue in the present appeal is with respect to addition of Rs.46,20,000/- on account of capital gains from sale of immovable property. In our view, the Assessing Officer was within his right to examine the issue before us and we do not find any fault on the part of Assessing Officer to deny the deduction of Rs.46,20,000/- in the case selected for limited scrutiny. 10. On perusal of the order of ld.CIT(A), it is clear that the reasoning given by the ld.CIT(A) is in line of the law laid down by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ganta Vijaya Lakshmi Vs. ITO, W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igh Court in the case of Late Gulam Ali Khan was rendered on 17.12.1984 and in that case it was seen. that appellant had entered into a transaction after selling the house for purchasing another house and subsequently the legal representative completed the transaction within!! one year from the death of the deceased appellant. ThiS decision thus has been rendered on the peculiar facts that the person died before completing the transaction and the legal heirs thus completed the purchase of the property but the intent of the appellant was clear as he had entered into the transaction before 4iis death and thus the Hon'ble Court decided the issue in the favour of the late appellant by interpreting the larger import of the deduction and the wider term of assessee to include family members. In the present case, the appellant has not invested in the name of wife, therefore the decisions cited by the appellant are not applicable and also in the case of Kamal Wah.al- 351 ITR 004 the property was bought in the joint name, which is not the case' of the appellant. It is very clear under the Income Tax Act that all persons are independent assessees, as defined in section 2(7) of the I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
