Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 642 - AT - Income TaxLong term capital gain computation - date of transfer of ownership agreement - indexation benefit from the fast installment paid towards purchase of flat in pursuance to allotment letter issued by the builder -Whether date of acquisition for capital gain purposes will be the date of the agreement of transfer of ownership between the builder and the buyer and not the date of issue of the allotment letter? - HELD THAT - The agreement between the assessee and the builder for transfer of ownership rights was excluded on 19.07.2010 whereas, the assessee has claimed the indexation benefit from 2007. The departmental authorities have allowed indexation benefit from the date of transfer of ownership agreement by relying upon a decision of Gulshan Malik 2014 (3) TMI 474 - DELHI HIGH COURT . The assessee has failed to bring on record any material or legal proposition to controvert the finding of the departmental authorities or to demonstrate inapplicability of the ratio laid down in case of Gulshan Malik vs. CIT (supra). Thus, in absence of any rebuttal by the assessee, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue. Grounds raised are dismissed.
Issues:
- Addition of long term capital gain - Indexation of property value - Penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) Addition of Long Term Capital Gain: The case involves an appeal by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax regarding the addition of long term capital gain for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had sold a property jointly owned with his wife and declared 50% of the capital gain as income. The AO noted that the assessee made payments for the property from 2007-08 to 2014-15 and claimed indexation for each installment. However, the AO considered the date of the agreement with the builder in 2010 as the date of acquisition for indexation purposes. The AO relied on a High Court decision and computed the long term capital gain accordingly. The appellant raised multiple grounds challenging this addition, but the Commissioner (Appeals) and the ITAT dismissed the appeal, as the assessee failed to rebut the authorities' findings. Indexation of Property Value: The dispute also involved the indexation of the property value for capital gains calculation. The assessee claimed indexation benefit from 2007 for installments paid towards the property. However, the authorities considered the date of the ownership transfer agreement in 2010 as the relevant date for indexation. The Assessing Officer relied on a High Court decision to support this position. The ITAT upheld the authorities' decision, stating that the assessee failed to provide any evidence to challenge the applicability of the High Court ruling. Therefore, the ITAT dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee regarding indexation. Penalty Notice under Section 271(1)(c): One of the grounds raised by the assessee was regarding the penalty notice issued under section 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer. The ITAT did not provide a detailed analysis of this specific issue in the judgment, as the focus was primarily on the addition of long term capital gain and the indexation of property value. Therefore, the outcome of the penalty notice issue was not explicitly discussed in the judgment. In conclusion, the ITAT upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the addition of long term capital gain and the indexation of property value. The appeal was dismissed, and the ITAT found no reason to interfere with the lower authorities' decisions on these issues. The judgment highlights the importance of providing evidence and legal arguments to challenge tax assessments effectively.
|