9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 893X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dmitted impugned long term capital gains in its case. He has replied in negative. Nor does he place on record HUF’s record showing his asset’s ownership in the past. The case file demonstrates that the said HUF holds a PAN (page no.78). Therefore, we observe that the assessee is not entitled to shift assessment of impugned capital gains in HUF’s hands. Therefore, the assessee’s arguments challenging assessment of capital gains in his hands rather than HUFs fail. Valuation of the property on the basis of partition deed dated 16.9.1975 - Held that:- As already narrated that this asset came from an earlier HUF after a registered partition. The value of the total assets was determined at ₹ 2,67,750/- and the impugned capital asset was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and S. S. Godara, JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Divyang Shah, AR For the Respondent : Shri M. K. Singh, Sr. DR ORDER PER S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER This assessee s appeal for A.Y.2008-09, arises from order of the CIT(A)-XIV, Ahmedabad dated 30.09.2011, passed in case no.CIT(A)-XIV/Wd.8(2)/82/10-11, upholding long term capital gains addition of ₹ 9,71,675/- in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961, in short the Act . 2. The assessee is an individual. He sold the capital asset in question on 29.1.2008 for ₹ 12.75 lacs. He did not admit any capital gains. The Assessing Officer noticed to the same in the course of scrutiny . He sought to assess the impugned capital gains. The as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... harsinh P. Jadeja, the facts show that the property was acquired by him by way of conquest and, therefore, the cost of acquisition in that case was NIL and accordingly the capital gain could not be applied to the consideration received on account of sale. In contrast to this, the appellant's property is an inherited property which was acquired by the forefathers of the appellant long time back and the appellant had not made any effort to find out the cost of acquisition to the previous owner who has acquired the property by any mode other than the will or inheritance. The appellant is trying to take refuge in the provisions or section 49(1) which is apparently misplaced. The appellant has not been able to give any documentary evidence o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of stamp duty on the date of partition i.e. the date on which the appellant became the owner of the property. During the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant was asked to declare the capital gain arising on the sale of land but as he did not declare the same but submitted that there was no cost of acquisition and computation of capital gain WAS not possible, therefore, the A. O. has rightly observed that the appellant has failed to exercise the option to adopt fair market value u/s. 55(3) of the Act. Therefore, considering the above discussion, the action of the A. O. in making the addition on account of long term capital gain on sale of land is upheld. The ground of appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s already on the case file. And these additional pleas are connected to the already pending issue. We admit these additional grounds accordingly. 4.1 We come to assessee s arguments for taxability of the long term capital gains in HUF s case rather than in individual s hands first. We put up a specific query to the ld AR as to whether the said HUF has ever shown the capital asset in question in its books or admitted impugned long term capital gains in its case. He has replied in negative. Nor does he place on record HUF s record showing his asset s ownership in the past. The case file demonstrates that the said HUF holds a PAN (page no.78). Therefore, we observe that the assessee is not entitled to shift assessment of impugned capital ga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
