9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 833X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee has offered the same in the return of income - Merely because the assessee has wrongly declared the long term capital gain on account of sale of these 4 flats the authorities are not justified in taxing the long term capital gain in the hands of the assessee when he is not the owner of the flats – thus, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside – Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 1865/PN/2012 - - - Dated:- 24-7-2014 - Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav And Shri R. K. Panda,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri P. I. Patwa For the Respondent : Shri Rajesh Damor ORDER Per R. K. Panda, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30- 07-2012 of the CIT(A)-IT/TP, Pune relating to Assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -do- 604 - - 484500 -do- 2.2 He noted that during the year under consideration, the assessee sold all these 4 flats for ₹ 51 lakhs, 36 lakhs, 45 lakhs and 42 lakhs respectively on 06-05-2008. Thus the total consideration received was shown at ₹ 1,74,00,000/-. After indexation, the assessee has claimed Long Term capital gain from purchase of 4 flats at ₹ 1,40,96,583/- and claimed the same as exempt on the ground that the entire consideration is invested in purchase of flats, one for ₹ 1,10,00,000/- on 17-07-2008 at Mumbai and another flat for ₹ 50,28,600/- on 26-05-2008 at Pune. The Assessing Officer noted from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cords. The reasons for the decision are mentioned in the succeeding paragraphs : 3.2. During the course of appellate proceedings, the Appellant was asked to furnish copies of the sale and agreements of the residential properties purchased by the Appellant. The Appellant furnished the same. On perusal of sale agreements, it is seen that the Appellant's parents- Smt. Maya Bhagwani and Shri Purushottam Bhagwani had jointly purchased these properties in 1993. Smt Maya Bhagwani died inte-state in the year 2000 and subsequently, Appellant's father- Shri Purushottam Bhagwani became the sole owner of the properties. 3.3. In the case of the purchase agreements of the properties in which Capital Gain was reinvested, it is seen that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the properties sold. The share certificates of the properties issued by the Co-operative Housing Society, where these flats were located also show that owner of the properties was Shri Purushottam Bhagwani. Therefore, only shri Purushottam Bhagwani can claim exemption u/s 54. The Appellant is not entitled for the claim of exemption u/s 54. 3.7. The Appellant has given farfetched explanation to justify his blatant false claim of exemption. All along, he led the authorities to believe that it was the Appellant, who was owner of the properties. 3.8. The A.O. is correct in his observation that the returns of income declaring these properties were not filed before the Department. In my view, notice u/s 148 could have been issued to examine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered the same in the return of income : i. CIT Vs. Bharat General Re-insurance Company Ltd., (1971) 81 ITR 303 (Delhi). ii. Impsat Private Ltd. Vs. ITO (2005 92 TTJ 552 (Delhi). 5. The Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the CIT(A). 6. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) and the Paper Book filed on behalf of the assessee. There is no dispute to the fact that the assessee in his return of income had declared long term capital gain on account of sale of 4 flats as power of attorney holder and claimed exemption u/s.54 of the Act on account of purchase of one flat at Mumbai and another at Pune. We find t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
