9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, the property has been transferred to him The assessee has taken possession of that house from the son and paid the consideration and as per Section 2(47)(v) of the Act, the transfer as per Income Tax Act, has been completed by the assessee. It is undisputed fact that the new property purchased from his son has not registered before the stamp authority. The son also has disclosed the capital gain on sale of residential immovable property to his father in the income tax return and paid the tax on capital gain. These facts have not been controverted by the ld DR, therefore, we uphold the order of the ld CIT(A). - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 105/JP/2013 - - - Dated:- 4-3-2016 - SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JM SHRI T.R. MEENA, AM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s No. 2 to 5 that this property belongs to him and acquisition of this property was made in F.Y. 2004-05. The statement of the assessee has been reproduced by the Assessing Officer on page Nos. 2 and 3 of the assessment order. The assessee got construction done on plot No. C- 54, Tilak nagar, Jaipur and deductions of construction was claimed at the time of calculation of long term capital gain. The computation has also been reproduced on page No. 3 of the assessment order. At the time of return, the assessee had claimed deduction U/s 54 of the Act at ₹ 75 lacs for purchase of a new house. The ld Assessing Officer asked to furnish details of deductions claimed U/s 54 for ₹ 75 lacs. The assessee had filed a copy of agreement for p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dingly, he not allowed the deduction U/s 54 of the Act on ₹ 75 lacs. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter before the ld CIT(A), who had deleted the addition by observing as under:- 4.3 I have carefully perused the order of the AO and the submissions of the AR along with the evidence filed. I concur with the submission of the AR on the following grounds as per the evidence on record: 1. The property was transferred vide Agreement to Sale Deed which was admittedly not registered and was executed on 29/04/2009 between Shri Nishant Sharma and Shri Rajesh Sharma. The payment was made by Shri Rajesh Sharma as per his bank statement. 2. Nishant Sharma filed a revised re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee as well as son of the assessee Shri Nishant Sharma had been examined by the Assessing Officer U/s 131 of the Act. During the course of statement, they admitted that this transaction was only settlement and therefore it was not shown in the return of income. He further referred Section 54(1) of the Act and argued that the assessee is an individual. There was a capital gain from transfer of residential house, whose income is taxable under the head income from house property. The transfer is long term capital gain. The assessee has purchased a residential house property within the prescribed time from his son i.e. at B-37, New Lite Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur. He further referred the transfer definition provided U/s 2(47) of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aws is as under:- (i) CIT Vs R.L. Sood (2000) 245 ITR 727. (ii) Balraj Vs. CIT 254 ITR 0022. (iii) CIT Vs. T.N. Aravinda Reddy (1997) 12 CTR (SC) 423. (iv) CIT Vs. Vishnu Trading and investment Company 176 CTR 0169. (v) CIT Vs Dr. Laxmichand Narpal Nagda 211 ITR 0804. (vi) ACIT Vs Om Prakash Goyal 53 SOT 0158 Therefore, he prayed to uphold the order of the ld CIT(A). 6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material on record. The assessee had claimed deduction U/s 54(1) of the Act at ₹ 75 lacs against the purchase made of a residential house at B-37, New Lite Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur on agreement to sale from his son. The assessee has taken possession of that house from the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
