9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') vide order dated 24.12.2018. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by assessee are as follows: "1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 16,11,628/- on account of long term capital gain calculated and rejecting cost of acquisition with indexation of Rs. 47,91,931/- against the sale value of Rs. 54,70,101/- declared in return field u/s 153C of the Act and accepted cost of acquisition with indexation filed in original return of income filed u/s 139 of the Act Rs. 38,58,473/-. 2. On the facts and in ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l raised by the assessee as "not pressed". 5. Appeal arises this way. The assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 20.03.2016, declaring total income of Rs. 14,60,310/-. There was search action u/s 132 of the Act, in the K. Star group of cases, where certain incriminating documents relating to the assessee were found, the details of which were reproduced by the assessing officer on page nos. 1&2 of the assessment order. The solitary issue in the assessee`s case is that when sale consideration of a capital asset is taken by the assessing officer from the seized documents, then cost of acquisition should also be accepted which is mentioned in the seized documents to compute long term capital. According to the Assessin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessing Officer. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in further appeal before us. 7. The Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Learned Counsel for the assessee, pleaded that addition was made by the Assessing Officer based on the seized material, that is, Assessing Officer has considered the sale consideration of the asset per seized material. Therefore, the expenditure relating to that asset should also be considered as per seized material. There should be harmony in the computation of LTCG. Therefore, ld Counsel contended that if the expenses were to be taken as per seized material, then there would be no addition in the hands of the assessee, and therefore the addition made by the Assessing Officer may be deleted. 8. On the other hand, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the cost of acquisition of the said asset was also mentioned in the seized material, but the Assessing Officer has not taken into account to compute LTCG, which is not tenable. It creates inequality in the computation of LTCG, that is, when sale consideration of a capital asset is taken by the Assessing Officer from the seized documents, then cost of acquisition should also be accepted, which is mentioned in the seized documents, to compute long term capital. In other words, when the sale consideration and cost of acquisition, both are mentioned in the seized material, then in that circumstances the Assessing Officer has to consider both to compute LTCG. Therefore, the approach of the Assessing Officer to take the sale consideration from se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
