TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilable before the Departmental Authorities - HELD THAT:- It is the specific case of the assessee that the property was purchased on 30/05/2006 and sold on 16/03/2011, therefore, it is a long term capital asset. It is further case of the assessee that the assessee is one of the co-owners of the said property. If the assessee wants to prove the nature of the asset, whether long term of short term by leading some evidence, in our view, such opportunity should be granted to the assessee. Since, FAA has refused to take cognizance of the evidences furnished by the assessee, in our view, the assessee deserves an opportunity to prove his case through proper evidence not only with regard to nature of asset, whether long term and short term, but a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O for not admitting such evidences is the violation of principle of natural justice and also violation of condition of Rule 46A(3) of the I.T Rules. 3. That, the Ld. CIT (A) has also erred in not admitting the additional evidence which are crucial for the disposal of appeal merely on the ground that the additional evidences were not supported by an application u / r 46A of the I.T Rules. In fact, Rule 46A cannot override the principals of natural justice. 4. That, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in dismissing the grounds no. 3 4 of appeals by observing that the A.O. has no occasion to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T Act due to non-compliance of notice u/s 148 of the I.T Act. Whereas, the appellant has already filed the original r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted due to compelling circumstances the assessee could not participate in the assessment proceedings. As a result of which, the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment ex parte to the best of his judgment under section 144 r.w.s.147 of the Act. He submitted, the assessee is one of the co-owners of the property sold. He submitted, the property was purchased on 30/05/2006, whereas, it was sold on 16/03/2011. He submitted, though the property sold was a long term capital asset, however, the Assessing Officer has taxed the profit derived from sale of the property as short term capital gain since, assessee could not produce the purchase deed in course of assessment proceedings. He submitted, though, before the First Appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al gain. It is evident, before the First Appellate Authority, the assessee did furnish a copy of the purchase deed. However, he refused to take cognizance of the purchase deed on a purely technical reason that assessee had not filed any application under Rule-46A seeking admission of additional evidence. Thus, it is patent and obvious that the subject addition on account of short term capital gain is only for the reason that the purchase deed was not available before the Departmental Authorities. 7. It is the specific case of the assessee that the property was purchased on 30/05/2006 and sold on 16/03/2011, therefore, it is a long term capital asset. It is further case of the assessee that the assessee is one of the co-owners of the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
