Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (1) TMI 460

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lth. From this, it has been proved beyond doubt that the assessee is only 1/6th share holder in the sale consideration which has been property taxed in the hands of the assessee to that extent. It was found for a fact that in the hands of all other co-owners 1/6th of the profit from sale of this house have been accepted by the same A.O. and the ld. CIT has not revised their accepted assessment orders. It is also found that on the basis of very same facts the A.O. has taken possible which has to be accepted as correct and, therefore, we do not find any error in this finding of the A.O. We are not in agreement with the ld. CIT's finding that entire capital gain out of sale is required to be assessed in the hands of the assessee alone - Decide .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ee and the other five claimed co-owners did not have any legal rights in the said flat and the omission of this position of law by the Assessing Officer renders the assessment order as erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue? 2. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The assessee filed his return of income on 28.11.2006 for the assessment year 2006-07 declaring the total income at ₹ 7,07,090/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act on 12.2.2007. Later on, the case was taken up for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 28.3.2007. The Assessing Officer framed the assessment vide order dated 21.10. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ct and restored the assessment order dated 21.10.2008 passed by the Assessing Officer. Hence, the present appeal by the revenue. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant-revenue, we do not find any merit in the appeal. 4. The assessee has been pursuing his profession of medical practitioner and filed his return of income on 28.11.2006 for the year in question declaring the total income at ₹ 7,07,090/-. He had shown his income from long term capital gains and professional income. The assessee had sold a flat situated at Vasant Vihar, New Delhi for a sale consideration of ₹ 4,51,00,000/- purchased on 24.12.1974. According to the assessee the said property was jointly owned by him with other family members and his H .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... bearing No. E-1/9, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi for a consideration of ₹ 4,51,00,000/-. This house was purchased by the assessee on 24.12.1974 from one Shri S.N. Sharma and thereafter made some construction thereon. The case of the assessee is that this property was jointly owned by him with other family members and his HUF and he was not the sole owner but having only 1/6th share in this property. The assessee, in his computation of income furnished along with the return of income for the year under consideration has shown his share in profit from sale of the property at ₹ 41,76,828/- after reducing indexed cost of acquisition etc. As per the ld. CIT, this properly was solely owned by the assessee and has to be assessed in his hand .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... are in above property had been shown by the co-owners in respective returns of wealth. From this, it has been proved beyond doubt that the assessee is only 1/6th share holder in the sale consideration which has been property taxed in the hands of the assessee to that extent. It was found for a fact that in the hands of all other co-owners 1/6th of the profit from sale of this house have been accepted by the same A.O. and the ld. CIT has not revised their accepted assessment orders. It is also found that on the basis of very same facts the A.O. has taken possible which has to be accepted as correct and, therefore, we do not find any error in this finding of the A.O. We are not in agreement with the ld. CIT's finding that entire capital g .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates