Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : ITO Vs Smt. Bikkina Savitri Devi (ITAT Visakhapatnam)
Appeal Number : I.T.A. No. 584/Viz/2019
Date of Judgement/Order : 11/05/2022
Related Assessment Year : 2014-15
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

ITO Vs Smt. Bikkina Savitri Devi (ITAT Visakhapatnam)

Based on the merits of the case on a beneficial note we are of the opinion that since the GPA holder namely Sri. Yarlagadda Ravi Chandra Prasad has disclosed the income from the sale of plots gifted by his sister in his return of income and discharged his liability of taxes on returned income, in his return of income, the same cannot be taxed once again in the hands of the assessee.

Facts-

The revenue filled petition against the order of CIT (A)-10. The respondent-assessee, an NRI sold various immovable properties by dividing them into plots through General Power of Attorney (GPA) executed in favour of Sri. Yarlagadda Ravi Chandra Prasad, brother of the assessee. The assessee e-filed ROI on 26/03/2016 admitting total income at Rs. 71,041/- and again filed a revised ROI on the same day revising the income returned at Rs. 2,71,790/-.

The AO issued a detailed show-cause notice on 5/10/2016, for which the assessee furnished the details of the gift of land given to her brother and the loan taken from M/s. Viswaroopi Energy Private limited. The respondent-assessee filed appeal before CIT (A) against the assessment of income at Rs. 1,72,30,151/- by the AO. The Ld CIT(A) also held that the gift is a valid gift as ingredients of the gift are satisfied even though it is not registered by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee treating the sale of plots as business income of the GPA holder. The Ld. CIT(A) also allowed the transactions involved in cash payments received from Sri P V Satyanarayana against the advance payment made by cheque by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that since no adverse material was brought on record the cash payments being the return of advance paid for the purchase of property, hence directed the Ld. AO to delete the addition made on this count. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031