9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 900X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment Year 2009-10. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal 1. In law, in the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case, the Id CIT(A) has to appreciate suo moto that the impugned order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act is void and bad in law. He ought to have quashed the proceeding accordingly. 2. In law, in facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the action of the AO of assessing the short term gain at Rs.9200000 as against the short term capital gain of Rs.228700 shown in the return. In the peculiar facts of the case, the Id CIT(A) ought to have inter alia assessed the short term capital gain as returned by the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. 3. The only interconnected issue raised by the assessee is that the Ld.CIT(A), erred in confirming the order of the AO by sustaining the addition of Rs. 89,71,300/- under the head capital gain. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is an individual and declared income under the head capital gain, other sources and agriculture income in response to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. The assessee has purchased a property for a value of Rs. 12,00,000/- dated 02/02/2005. The assessee has entered a memorandum of understanding transferring the impugned property at Rs. 15,00,000/- to M/s Frontline Financial Services Ltd. dated 15-04- 2008. However, the Frontline Fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to pay the due taxes on the amount received by it against the MOU as discussed above. Thus, it was contended by the Ld. AR that the assessee cannot be charged for the tax on the amount paid to the M/s Frontline Financial Services Ltd. 9. On the other hand, the Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 10. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The issue in the present case relates whether the payment made by the assessee to the company namely Frontline Financial Services Ltd for Rs.89,00,000/- which was claimed as deduction against the short-term capital gain represents the sham transaction. Admittedly, both the lower authorities concurrently have reache ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The relevant extract is reproduced as under: 6. That Shri Babusinh Thakor, is and will not be able or responsible for payment of any tax, of whatsoever nature, on the aforesaid amount of Rs.89,00,000/- and if any demand or notice raised on Shri Babusinh Thakor by Income Tax department or any other Govt. department or authorities, the same shall be the sole responsibility of the Company and the Company shall pay and reimburse to Shri Babusinh Thakor the amount of such tax, demand or loss on damage. 10.3 All these facts discussed above were very much available before the authorities below. Despite that no proceeding against the company has been initiated by the revenue by issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act. It is not out of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
