9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition of Rs. 73,32,026/- in absence of supporting evidence of purchase and cost of improvement by ignoring the fact that the assessee failed to furnish the evidence during the assessment and remand proceeding also. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in fact by deleting the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 1,15,70,000/- on the ground that the assessee failed to produce evidence of cancellation of MoU related to the transaction of transfer of property in question. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal." 2. The Revenue has filed application dated 28.12.2021 seeking condonation of delay. It is stated that there was a delay of 15 day ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO assessed the income of the assessee at INR 3,14,70,018/- against the declared income of INR 22,68,140/-. 4. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Thereby, the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition of INR 77,60,500/- purported to have been received as consideration for sale of property i.e. "Hari Om, Mira Road (East), Mumbai" deleted the addition of INR 1,15,70,000/- made in respect of MoU between M/s Vikunj Enterprises Pvt.Ltd. and the assessee for purchase of flat and shop in the building of M/s Vardhman Enclave. Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition of INR 73,32,026/- made on account of Long Term Capital Gain ("LTCG") on sale of prop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uisition and copies of bills in respect of expenses incurred towards cost of improvement of both properties. The above evidence has been verified and it was found that assessee has incurred expenses amounting to Rs. 17,81,220/- and Rs. 37,26,120/- towards cost of acquisition and cost of improvement respectively. The than AO has made the addition of Rs. 73,32,026/- under the head income from other sources on account of non-production of documentary evidence in respect of expenditure incurred for purchase of property and for cost of improvement....." 12.3. The AO had verified the cost of acquisition of Rs 17,81,220/- & cost of improvement of Rs 37,26,120/- w.r.t. sale of this property. He had no remarked adversely on the indexation claimed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same is hereby, affirmed. Hence, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 10. Now, coming to addition of INR 1,15,70,000/- on the ground that the assessee failed to produce evidence of cancellation of MoU related to transaction of transfer of property. 11. Ld.CIT DR for the Revenue vehemently argued that Ld.CIT(A) was not justified to delete this addition. Admittedly, he submitted that agreement has been acted upon as per the own showing of the assessee, a sum of INR 5,00,000/- was paid therefore, the AO was justified in making the addition of the entire amount as the document issued to be ready as a whole. 12. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the AO was not justified in making the impugned addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
