9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1062X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the facts of the case. 2. The addition is based on submissions and conjectures that cash of Rs. 33,80,000/- has been received by the Appellant although there is not a single iota of evidence of the same. 3. The Assessing Officer was not justified in ignoring the submissions of the Appellant which involved ancestral Joint Family Property. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of law, the Assessing Officer has failed to appreciate that the order levying penalty passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271D is illegal, bad in law and wrong on facts. 5. That the Assessing Officer has failed to appreciate that impugned penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer is ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0,000/- as part of sale consideration on sale of inheritance share of the assessee in the property located at 2743 to 2746 situated at Kucha Chelian, Darya Ganj, New Delhi. The assessing officer however, did not accept the contention of the assessee and held that the assessee accepted the sale consideration of Rs 33,80,000/-on sale of property in cash and levied penalty u/s 271D. 6. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). who confirmed the penalty u/s section 271-D and of the Act. Aggrieved the assessee is before us. 7. The ld AR of the assessee argued that the assessee is the son of one of the brothers Late Shri Satya Pal Chopra. The ld. counsel for the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the sale deed. The assessee has not received documents related to original deed and or any further agreement to sell etc, from the senior members of the family, so that the assessee can co-relate and substantiate facts and figures in support of his contention that he has not received any cash payments of Rs. 33,80,000/- and or any other payment whatsoever. 11. The ld AR of the assessee further submitted that he has not received any cash amount from the vendee either at the time of registering the sale deed or any time before or after the date. The assessee also submitted the bank statement of his savings bank account maintained with the SBI, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. The ld AR stated that on scrutiny of this bank statement no cash receipts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndee. Further, the sale deed dated 29.08.2016 refers to the deed dated 18.11.2015. For the purposes of stamp duty, the current market value of the property was determined at Rs. 1,69,00,000/- and attributed to 5 heirs in equal proportion of Rs 33,80,000/-. 15. We also find that the sale deed dated 29.08.2016 executed between the assessee and the Vendee nowhere mentions that the assessee has received Rs 33,80,000/- in cash or otherwise in AY 2017- 18. It only mentions that the market value to the extent of 1/5th share of the assessee in the said property comes to Rs 33,80,000/- for stamp duty. The document also mentions that the property was in possession of the Vendee since 2007 and the sale was not registered due to some domestic reasons. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
