TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e s return of income for A.Y. 2009-10 the assets of the assessee is individual but in verification the assessee has signed in the capacity of proprietor of M/s. Lakhia Brothers. From the perusal of the sale deed it appears that M/s. Lakhia Brothers was a partnership firm and therefore, the land was sold by the partnership firm and not by the assessee in his individual capacity or as the proprietor of M/s. Lakhia Brothers. In fact, debt recovery proceedings also give the direction was given against the partnership firm M/s. Lakhia Brothers by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Contention of the assessee that the status of the assessee was not correctly taken into account by the AO while making the addition appears to be correct. Besides this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch as that no sufficient opportunity was granted and the assessee has furnished the evidence in support of the claim but not considered by the A.O. 3. He has wrongly described the assessee as she and wrongly mentioned the assessed income at Rs. 93,14,200/-. 4. He has erred in law and on facts in holding that the property for which capital gain has been computed though purchased by the firm M/s. Lakhia Brothers belonged to the assessee as sole proprietor of the said firm without properly considering and appreciating the facts of the appellant and ignoring the vital evidence regarding ownership of property placed on record. 5. He has also erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the facts that the so called letter dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act ought to have been levied. 12. On the facts the returned income of Rs. 1,35,820/- ought to have been accepted in toto. 13. The appellant craves leave to add to alter and/or to modify any ground of appeal. 3. Return of Income declaring total income of Rs. 1,35,820/- was filed on 25.09.2009. Subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny and a notice under Section 143(2) dated 29.09.2010 was issued and served. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee is a proprietary for M/s. Lakhia Brothers who is engaged in the business of trading petrol and diesels. The Assessing Officer further observed that as per the AIR information the assessee sold the land for sale consideration of Rs. 54,61,000/-. The sale deed was reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the assessee. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the property for which capital gain has been computed was purchased from M/s. Lakhia Brothers which was a partnership firm. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the Assessing Officer totally ignored the evidences filed by the assessee especially the sale deed wherein M/s. Lakhia Brothers has taken the sole land and not the assessee in her individual capacity. 6. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). 7. Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that in assessee s return of income for A.Y. 2009-10 the assets of the assessee is individual but in verification the assessee has signed in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
