SHIV KUMAR MITTAL,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD
In the result, the appeals of both the assessees are allowed
ITA 633/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2019AY 2009-10
Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2009-10 Shiv Kumar Mittal, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 8(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Acipm 3813 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Vikash Modi Revenue By: Smt. V. Aparna Date Of Hearing: 04/06/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2019 O R D E R Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. This Is An Appeal Of The Assessee For The Ay 2009-10 Against The Order Of Cit(A) – 8, Hyderabad, Dated, 16/02/2018. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Had Sold A Property Situated At Kondapur Grampanchayat, Serilingampally Mandal, Rr District Vide Sale Deed No. 4100/2008 Dated 5Th June, 2008 For A Consideration Of Rs. 15,48,000/-, Whereas The Guideline Value Of The Property As Adopted By The Stamp Valuation Authority Was Rs. 50,56,000/-. Since The Assessee Did Not Offer Any Capital Gains On This Transaction To Tax, Ao Initiated Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act By Issuing A Notice U/S 148 On 24/03/2016, Which Was Served On The Assessee By Way Of Affixture At The Last Known Address & Thereafter Notice U/S 142(1) Was Also Issued On 09/05/2016. Since There Was No Reply From The Assessee, A 2 I.T.A. No. 633/Hyd/18 Shiv Kumar Mittal, Hyd..
For Appellant: Shri Vikash ModiFor Respondent: Smt. V. Aparna
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 282(1)Section 50C
capital gains and brought the same to tax.
3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who confirmed the order of AO as far as service of notice u/s 148 is concerned. However, he granted partial relief by directing the AO to compute the LTCG by reducing the cost of acquisition along with indexation. Thus, the assessee
