PRADEEP KUMAR MALHOTRA.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 27(4),KOLKATA., KOLKATA

This appeal by the assessee is against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XIV, Kolkata dated 20.12.2012. Assessment was framed by ITO Ward-27(4), Kolkata u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide his order dated 29.12.2011 for assessment year 2009-10.

Solitary ground raised by assessee is as regards that Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer on account of treating the income of M/s P.K.Malhotra & Others (HUF) in the name of assessee.

Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and has earned income from salary and sale of property. During the year, assessee sold its Pradeep Kr. Malhotra v. ITO Wd-27(4), Kol. Page 2 property for a consideration of ₹ 1.30 crores. The PAN of assessee was also furnished to the Registry Authority but assessee did not furnish any information about the sale of property in its return of income. The AO during the assessment proceedings sought clarification from assessee regarding the non-disclosure of sale-purchase of the property in the return of income. In compliance thereto assessee submitted that the impugned property belongs to M/s P.K.Malhotra and Other (HUF) and as such the assessee has not sold any property during the year. However, assessee failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of its claim that property belong to aforesaid HUF. Therefore in the absence of necessary evidence AO treated the entire amount of ₹ 1.30 crores as Short Tram Capital Gains (STCG) and added it to the income of assessee.

Matter was carried over to Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the action of AO by observing as under:- “3. I have carefully considered the assessment order. The Ld. A/R of the appellant appeared during the course of the appellate proceedings. However, neither any written submission was field by him nor any evidence was produced in respect of the ground of appeal. No evidence has been produced either before the AO or before me to show that the said property belonged to HUF. The information gathered by the Assessing Officer revealed that the transaction was done by the appellant and his PAN was given to the registering authority. The appellant has neither furnished the cost of acquisition of the property or the date thereof either before the AO or before me. In the fact and under the circumstances of the case, nothing worthy of merit was produced before me to controvert the findings of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, I hold that there is no merit in the ground of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of the capital gain amounting to Rs.1,30,00,000/- under the heard Short-term capital gain in the hands of the appellant is confirmed. Accordingly, Ground No.1 of the appeal is dismissed.”