Case Law Details
Bharati Narendra Oswal Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 15-03-2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Pune [‘CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2013-14.
2. We find this appeal was filed with a delay of 12 days. To condone the said delay, the assessee filed notarized affidavit dated 11-08-2017 explaining the reasons for delay. On perusal of the same and upon hearing both the parties, the delay of 12 days is condoned.
3. The assessee raised ground Nos. 2 to 5 amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration is as to whether the CIT(A) justified in confirming the addition of Rs.1,26,80,413/- on account of long term capital gain in the hands of the assessee instead of Jayantilal Oswal in the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. We note that the assessee is an individual and derives income from cooking, mehandi classes and rental income. The assessee filed return of income declaring a total income at Rs.3,22,471/-. The AO issued notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act for verification of “capital gains consideration in ITR is less than sale of property basing on the report in AIR and for low capital gain with respect to sales consideration”. In response to the said notices, the assessee submitted documents as called for from time to time and the AO determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,25,44,810/- inter alia making addition on account of long term capital gain vide its order dated 28-03-2016 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. The CIT(A) confirmed the said addition by recording its reasoning vide Para No. 5.6.2 of impugned order. Having aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is before us.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
