Lt. Laxmib etiji Puros hottamlalji Maharaj vs. Income Tax Officer

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee sold an immovable property for Rs. 41,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee did not file an income return for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12 and did not disclose the source of the transaction. The case was re-opened under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a notice under section 148 was issued on 25.03.2018. The assessee did not respond to any of the notices, and the AO treated the transaction as unexplained investment under section 68 of the Act and added it to the total income of the assessee. A penalty proceeding was also initiated under section 271(1)(b) of the Act due to non-compliance with the notices.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Deletion of addition of Rs.41,00,000/- made by the AO as Total Consideration of the Immovable Property sold.
• 2. Permission for the assessee to present documentary evidence to establish Computation of Capital Gains and Exemption under section 54.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Kalpana Nitin Shah Vs. ITO 19(2)(2)

  SMC Bench, Mumbai benchAY 2011-12Partly Allowed

• Dilip Mohandas Devani vs. Income Tax Officer

  Ahmedabad bench

• Gail Timmins vs. ITO Int. Tax 4(1)(1)

  Mumbai bench

• Murtuza Kothari vs. ITO, Ward-19(2)(2)

  Mumbai benchAY 2015-16Partly Allowed

• Ranjit V Srivatsaa vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corp. Ward - 3(2), Chennai

• Udayachal Goregaon Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs. ITO Ward 41(4)(4), Mumbai

  Mumbai bench