9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 492X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imply that the condition upon which the assessee was to receive the said 30% of the sale consideration had already been satisfied during his lifetime. Thus the assessee's share out of the said consideration became payable to her directly under the will on the death of the father. Even if the matter is looked in this perspective the receipt in the hands of the assessee cannot be regarded as income. However, the Tribunal has taken a different approach by holding that even if it is regarded as income the assessee would be entitled to the benefit of income under Section 56(2)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Either way the answer is the same. No interference with the order of the Tribunal is called for. Addition on account of Income from Hous ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the sale of the property relates back to date on which the assessee's father, Sh. A.P.Bajaj was alive and that consequently the will executed by the said Sh.A.P.Bajaj is of no consequence, when as per the assessee's own submission (reproduced at Para 5.5 of the CIT(A)'s order, there was no formal agreement of sale in this case and a mere receipt of the initial advance of Rs. 7.5 lakhs can not be treated as an agreement for sale, particularly when the sale deed executed by the son of Sh. A.P.Bajaj on 08.11.2005 (after the death of Sh. Bajaj) does not make any mention of any earlier agreement of sale and when there is no evidence/indication of the date, if any, on which possession of the land was given to the buyers in pursuance of any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... term capital gains and added it to the total income of the assessee. The ITA 162/2013 Page 3 of 6 assessing officer also denied the claim of exemption under Section 54EC to the extent of Rs. 35,25,000/- made by the assessee. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the addition of Rs. 1,07,25,000/-. The Tribunal on different reasons has confirmed the deletion. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us that the Tribunal had erred in law inasmuch as the receipt of the said sum of Rs. 1,05,00,000/- by the assessee from her brother had been received by the brother, in part, during the lifetime of the father in November, 2004. It is only thereafter, that the assessee's father late Sh. A P Bajaj passed away on 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
