GST Course
CA Final Online Classes
CA Classes

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

A power of attorney holder cannot be treated as rightful owner of the income which has arisen on the sale of a particular property

LinkedIn


Court :
ITAT Ahmedabad

Brief :
Present two appeals are directed at the instance of the assessee against common order of the ld.CIT(A)-4, Baroda dated 17.12.2015 passed for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05.

Citation :
ITA 906/AHD/2018

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
 “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
(Conducted through Virtual Court)

BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT
AND
SHRI AMARJIT SINH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.906 and 907/Ahd/2018
Asstt.Year : 2003-2004 and 2004-05

Bankimbhai D. Patel
Prop. Viral Construction
49, Krishna Housing Society
Station Road, Anand.
PAN : ADUPP 5276 G

Vs.

ITO, Ward-1
Anand.
(Applicant) (Responent)

Assessee by : Shri Mukund Bakshi, AR
Revenue by : Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr.DR

Date of Hearing : 23/03/2021
Date of Pronouncement: 19/05/2021

O R D E R

PER RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT:

Present two appeals are directed at the instance of the assessee against common order of the ld.CIT(A)-4, Baroda dated 17.12.2015 passed for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05.

2. In both the assessment years, the assessee has taken three grounds of appeals which are verbatim same except variation in the quantum. In brief the grievance of the assessee is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.29,39,524/- and Rs.50,45,333/- in the Asstt.Year 2003-04 and 2004-05 respectively on the ground that the assessee has received the above amount as onmoney on sale of land.

3. The facts on all vital points are verbatim same, more so the discussions in both the assessment orders are also identical. Therefore for the facility of reference, we take the facts from the Asstt.Year 2003-04.

4. Brief facts of the case are that in both the assessment years, originally the assessment orders were passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28.12.2007 whereby the income of the assessee was determined at Rs.29,86,640/- and Rs.50,93,470/- as against returned income of Rs.47,120/- and Rs.48,140/- in the Asstt.Years 2003-04 and 2004-05 respectively. A survey under section 133A was conducted at the premises of M/s.Vastu Construction & M/s.Viral Construction on 23.9.2003. Both these concerns are proprietor-ship of the assessee. In Vastu Construction, 23 residential houses in different areas under name and style of “Maruti Pravesh-II” were constructed. In brief, the case of the AO is that the assessee was the power of attorney holder on certain pieces of land on which construction was made, and these were sold. He has received on-money and that the on-money has not been accounted for by the assessee. The ld.AO has made reference to the statement of Shri Rasikbhai C.

To know more in details find the attachment file
 

 

Guest
on 28 May 2021
Published in Income Tax
Views : 16
downloaded 2 times
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags