Stay Petition No. 82/Bang/2010 (In I.T.A No. 1160/Bang/2010) (Assessment Year 2006-07) and I.T.A. No. 1160/Bang/2010 (Assessment Year 2006-07). Case: Smt. Sheela Pishe, Partner Rupasi Vs Income-tax Officer. Bombay ITAT High Court
| Case Number | Stay Petition No. 82/Bang/2010 (In I.T.A No. 1160/Bang/2010) (Assessment Year 2006-07) and I.T.A. No. 1160/Bang/2010 (Assessment Year 2006-07) |
| Judges | O.K. Narayanan, Vice President and P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. |
| Issue | Income Tax Act |
| Judgement Date | November 02, 2010 |
| Court | Bombay ITAT High Court |
Order:
O.K. Narayanan, Vice President, (In the ITAT Bangalore 'A' Bench)
-
The appeal and the stay petition are filed by the Assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2006-07. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(A)-I at Bangalore, dated.31.08.2010 and arises out of the assessment completed Under Section 143(3).
-
The Assessee in this case had purchased a property in the previous year relevant to the assessment year under appeal. The consideration paid by the Assessee for the purchase and the purchase price reported by the Sub-Registrar to the Income tax Department differed. In spite of prima facie evidences produced by the Assessee to support the payment recorded in the registered document, the Assessing Officer proceeded to accept the value reported by the Sub-Registrar and made out a case against the Assessee that she has purchased some other property for a higher amount which was not disclosed by her and the value of the property disclosed by the Sub-Registrar was something different. On this basis, the Assessing Officer added an amount of Rs. 32,44,212/-as income of the Assessee which is the value reported by the Sub-Registrar.
-
The first appeal was ceremoniously dismissed.
-
In fact stay petition alone was posted for hearing today on 29.10.2010. But on going through the appeal file we found that the authorities below were quite casual in their approach in appreciating the valuable evidences produced by the Assessee in support of her contention that the documented consideration was the actual amount paid by her and one property alone was purchased by her. In order to strengthen her arguments the Assessee has produced before us a letter from the Sub-Registrar, K. R. Puram...
To continue reading
Request your trial