Kanti Jaiswal, Kanpur V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax-II, Kanpur

ITA 932/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9080 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.932/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011 - 12 DY.C.I.T. - II, KANPUR. VS SMT. KANTI JAISWAL, 1114, MIG RATAN LAL NAGAR, KANPUR. PAN:ABQPJ7856G (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) NONE APPELLANT BY SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, D.R. RESPONDENT BY 20/02/2015 DATE OF HEARING 23 /03/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS AN ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) - II, KANPUR DATED 17/09/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 2012. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND LAW TO CONFIRM THE PENALTY OF RS.62,595/ - U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE FULL PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND REVISED COMPUTATION WAS FURNISHED BEFORE ANY ENQUIRY OR FINDING BY THE LEARNED DCIT. 3. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING IN SPITE OF NOTICE AND HENCE, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE EX - PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. 2 4. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED TH E SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.3,12,975/ - HAS BEEN MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND THIS ADDITION IS ON THE BASIS THAT WHILE CALCULATING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.26,26,650/ - , THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED COST OF ACQUISITION AT RS.14,73,350/ - BUT ON VERIFICATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY WAS RS.11,60,375/ - AND FOR THIS REASON , THE CAPITAL GAIN WAS COMPUTED AT RS.29,39,625/ - RESULTING INTO ADDITION OF RS.3,12,975/ - . THIS FIND IS ALSO GIVEN BY CIT(A) THAT DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE BONAFIDE OF THE MISTAKE HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 6 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PA GE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 23 /03/2015 *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1.THE APPELLANT 2.THE RESPONDENT. 3.CONCERNED CIT 4.THE CIT(A) 5.D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR