9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the collaborator and retained the same for himself - the penalty proceedings are independent proceedings and the issue could not be adjudicated in quantum proceedings. It has rightly observed that the share was kept by him on which the builder constructed the ground floor and has given the same to the assessee after construction - The value of that construction which the assessee had received was Rs.29,78,965/- which the assessee was entitled to for exemption u/s 54 of the Act – there was no justification for adding an amount – thus, the order of the Tribunal is upheld – Decided against Revenue. - I.T.A. No.82 of 2012 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 22-4-2014 - Satish Kumar Mittal And Kuldip Singh,JJ. For the Appellant : Ms. Urvashi Dhug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t change the overall additions/computation of capital gains made by the AO. The brief facts of the case are that originally the assessment of the assessee (who derives income from salary, house property, capital gains and other sources) was framed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 9.4.2007 (Annexure A-1) under Section 143(3) of the Act at an income of Rs.61,38,784/-. Subsequently the Commissioner of Income Tax initiated the proceedings under Section 263 of the Act against the assessee on the ground that the capital gains declared by the assessee with reference to collaboration agreement dated 04.06.2004 had been accepted by the Assessing Officer without application of mind. After hearing the assessee, the assessment order was se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the same for himself. With regard to penalty proceedings, it was held by the Commissioner of Income Tax that the penalty proceedings are independent proceedings and the issue could not be adjudicated in quantum proceedings. The said order was challenged by the revenue by filing an appeal before the Tribunal which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 03.11.2011 (Annexure A-6). We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal as in our opinion the substantial questions of law framed by the revenue in this appeal do not arise in the facts and circumstances of the case. Undisputedly, the assessee entered into a collaboration agreement with the builder M/s Salu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plot with construction as Rs.4,08,33,333/- and thereafter assessed the cost of 40% of the value of the plot and construction as Rs.1,63,33,333/- and then held that the said amount is the consideration which the assessee has received in kind, and after deducting an amount of Rs.29,78,965/-, i.e. cost of construction which the assessee is entitled for exemption under Section 54 of the Act, the Assessing Officer assessed the capital gains as Rs.1,33,54,368/-. In our opinion, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has rightly held that there was no justification by the Assessing Officer in computing the capital gains in respect of 40% share in the property in the above manner as the assessee never transferred 40% share to the builder ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
