9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs.1,76,070/- declared in the return of income filed by the Appellant on 28/04/2017. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming action of the Assessing Officer in making disallowance of Rs.46,23,198/- for the alleged wrong exemption claimed under section 54B of the I.T. Act, 1961 without considering the fact that the Appellant has made investment of his share of Rs.61,20,000/- in sale consideration of agricultural land in the name of his wife and claimed exemption of Rs.59,23,198/- u/s. 54B of the I.T Act, 1961 taking indexed cost of Rs.1,96,802/-. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in holding that the appellant is not entitled for claiming deduction under section 54B of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... source stands explained." 3. After receiving information the case of the assessee was reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after recording reasons. Notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 26.12.2016 which was served upon the assessee. In response to notice under Section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed his return on 28.04.2017 by declaring total income of Rs.1,76,070/- and the assessee also claimed exemption under Section 54B of Rs.59,23,198/-. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee is having income from salary and capital gain. Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 04.05.2017. The assessee filed the details as well as the submissions before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that prior to this Sale Deed, the assessee and the purchaser prepared Banakhat as on 19.01.2010 for Rs.91,80,000/- and Sale Deed was registered for Rs.20,00,000/- on 19.04.2010. The assessee was a co-owner and confirming party of the land with two other persons and as per the sale deed the assessee's share of sale consideration was Rs.61,20,000/-. This was shown as sale value in computing capital gain including cheque and cash. During the course of enquiry in the case of purchaser Shri Saiyad Gulam Haider M. Bukhari, he had accepted the purchase of above property for Rs.92,50,000/- during the financial year 2009-10 and admitted that the amount was paid through cheque of Rs.12,00,000/- and Rs.80,90,000/- in cash. The said purchase ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rayan vs CIT, 402 ITR 117. The Ld. AR further submitted that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.46,23,198/- and also withdrawing the deduction of Rs.13,00,000/- given by the Assessing Officer which amount to enhancement for which the assessee was not given any notice and the assessee was not heard by the CIT(A). The Ld. AR further submitted that all the documents related to sale deed and the purchase deed was before the CIT(A) and the remand report was also called for from the Assessing Officer but the CIT(A) simply taken cognisance of the statement of the Notary and not taken into account the contents of the sale deed and a purchase deed. Therefore, the Ld. AR submitted that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
