DHANJAY N SHINDE,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(2)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

This is an appeal against the order dated 29.10.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 33, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] relevant to the Assessment Year 2009-10.

The facts of the case are that the assessee was an individual and filed his return of income on 09.11.2009 declaring total income at Rs.1,23,004/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961( in short “the Act”). Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued which were served upon the assessee. In pursuance of notices Shri Santosh Rane appeared and represented the mater of the assessee. In the relevant assessment year assessee has sold land to the tune of Rs.1,16,63,000/-. Assessee purchased the said property in October, 1986 to the tune of Rs.9,50,000/- whereas as per the purchase agreement, the cost of property was shown at Rs.80,000/-. Thereafter the assessee shown the sale of property to the tune of Rs.41,00,000/- but the agreement speaks about the value of the property to the tune of Rs.1,16,63,000/-. The figures mentioned in the agreement were taken and the assessment was made u/s. 50C of the Act. Accordingly the sale of the property in question was taken to the tune of Rs.1,16,63,000/- and thereafter the cost of acquisition and the total Long Term Capital Gain was assessed to the tune of Rs.1,11,30,429/-. In the said relevant assessment year an amount of Rs.50,000/- was found to be credited in the bank accounts of the assessee on 24.04.2008 and an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 21.10.2008. The assessee was asked to explain the source but nothing was explained therefore an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was treated as unexplained investments u/s. 69 of the Act. Total income of the ITA No.7689/M/12 A.Y. 2009-10 assessee was assessed to the tune of Rs.1,15,03,430/-. Feeling aggrieved the assessee filed the appeal before learned CIT(A) where learned CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal therefore the assessee is before us.

We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned representative of the parties and perused the record carefully. The assessee has challenged the confirmation of order of Assessing Officer passed by learned CIT(A) on the point of addition u/s. 50C of the Act and on the point of unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. The learned representative of the assessee did not prefer the arguments on merit however moved an application for producing the additional evidence. The contention of the assessee is that the assessee is of 72 years of age and suffering from various diseases. It is contented that he was purely misrepresented by the pleader therefore he wanted to adduce additional evidence in support of his respective claim. It is specifically asserted that his contention on additional evidence was rejected by the learned CIT(A) on the ground that the formal application u/s. 46A was not filed. The assessee wanted to adduce additional evidence with regard to the valuation of his property. Assessee also wanted to adduce the letters of Mumbai Municipal Corporation with regard to the market value of the plot. Assessee also wanted to adduce the additional evidence in support of his claim to improvement in cost of plot to the tune of Rs.8,70,000/-

Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed.