9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (10) TMI 848 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment - Long Term Capital Gain had escaped assessment - co-owner holding 50% share in the property - Held that - Considering the agreement of Partition & documentary evidences AO has erroneously drawn his conclusions that the assessee was having 50% share in the said property, instead of the fact that the assessee has only 50 square yards out of 1050 square yards of the property. AO has also not brought any material on record to rebut the evidences filed by the assessee. The legal heirs of late Shri Arun Kumar Lal had shown the entire sale consideration in its return of income - in favour of assessee.
Issues involved:
1. Assessment of Long Term Capital Gain in the case of an individual. 2. Dispute over the share of property ownership between co-owners. 3. Evaluation of documentary evidence to determine property ownership. 4. Appeal against the order of the First Appellate Authority. Issue 1: Assessment of Long Term Capital Gain The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the First Appellate Authority pertaining to the assessment of Long Term Capital Gain for the Assessment Year 2005-06. The Assessing Officer had issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the individual for not declaring Long Term Capital Gain amounting to Rs.64,11,360. The individual had invested in Tax Exemption Bonds under Section 54E of the Act to avail benefits. The dispute arose regarding the correct assessment of capital gains and the share of the individual in the property sale consideration. Issue 2: Dispute over property ownership The primary issue in dispute was whether the individual's share in the property was only 50 square yards out of a total of 1050 square yards. The Assessing Officer had made an addition of Long Term Capital Gain in the individual's hands based on the assumption that the individual held a 50% share in the property. However, the individual contended that their share was limited to 50 square yards, supported by various documentary evidence including agreements, gift deeds, and court filings. Issue 3: Evaluation of documentary evidence The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considered various documents such as agreements of partition, family agreements, gift deeds, court filings, and conversion documents to determine the actual share of the individual in the property. The First Appellate Authority upheld the contentions of the individual based on the documentary evidence presented, highlighting discrepancies in the Assessing Officer's conclusions regarding the property ownership share. Issue 4: Appeal against the First Appellate Authority The Revenue, further aggrieved by the decision of the First Appellate Authority, filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. After hearing arguments from both parties and examining the facts and circumstances along with the documentary evidence, the Tribunal upheld the finding of the First Appellate Authority. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, concluding that the Assessing Officer had erroneously assessed the individual's share in the property and that the individual had correctly declared their share of Long Term Capital Gain. In conclusion, the judgment resolved the dispute over property ownership share, emphasizing the importance of documentary evidence in determining tax liabilities and upholding the decision of the First Appellate Authority in favor of the individual.
|
