Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 349 - AT - Income TaxCapital gains earned on purchase and sale of immoveable property - treating information contained in ITS as related to transaction of sale of immovable property - HELD THAT - We find that the assessee had repeatedly admitted to having entered into in only one transaction of purchase of immoveable property with her share in the same being 20%.The assessee had duly substantiated this investment with necessary documentary evidence by way of furnishing copy of purchase deed of the said property. The assessee s explanation with regard to this investment was examined and duly accepted by the Revenue authorities as the source of investment in the same being explained. With respect to this transaction reported in the ITS of the assessee the Revenue we have noted is satisfied with the assesses explanation of source of investment. With respect to the other transaction reported in the ITS of value which the Ld.CIT(A) has interpreted to relate to sale of the property purchased by the assessee we find that other than the ITS information the Revenue had no other basis for treating the said information so. Even inquiries conducted by the AO from the sub Registrars office revealed no information relating to this transaction.Assessee on the other hand we find repeatedly asserted that the two transactions reported in the ITS were relating to one and same transaction of purchase of immoveable property - The other transaction being different has all along being denied by the assessee. CIT(A) s inference that the second transaction related to sale of the immoveable property was also demonstrated by the assessee to be incorrect who had pointed out that the said property had in fact been sold in A.Y 2012-13 and not the impugned year and capital gains earned thereon by the assessee returned to tax. The explanation was substantiated with copy of return of income for A.Y 2012-13 reflecting capital gains therein. Assessee had pointed out how the two transactions reflected in the ITS pertained to one transaction of purchase of immoveable property pointing out the same registration no. mentioned against the two transactions in the ITS and also pointing out that based on the stamp duty paid by the assessee on the property purchased the value of the second transaction reflected the stamp duty value of the said transaction and hence the two transactions were nothing but one transaction reflected twice in the ITS. None of the above averments of the assessee have been dealt with by the CIT(A) while holding the second transaction to represent sale of immoveable property purchased by the assessee. The assesses contention duly substantiated that the property was sold in A.Y 2012-13 has not been controverted by the CIT(A). Nor has the Ld.CIT(A) cared to even apply his mind to the similarities pointed out by the assessee in the two transactions reported in the ITS. The entire exercise of the Ld.CIT(A) in holding the second transaction reported in the ITS to reflecting sale of the property purchased appears to be totally adhoc, without any basis and per his own whims and fancies in total disregard of the assesses explanation. We therefore agree with the Ld.Counsel for the assessee that there was no reason for treating the second transaction reported in the ITS as being distinct from the first transaction. Addition made to the income of the assessee on account of capital gain earned by the assessee by treating the second transaction reported in the ITS as distinct from the first and being sale of property purchased is accordingly directed to be deleted. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
|