9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or assessment year 2008-09. 2. The 1st issue raised by assessee in this appeal is that learned CIT-A erred in confirming the order of AO by holding the assessee's share in the impugned property at Rs. 22,25,225.00. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is an individual and has declared its income under the head capital gain. The assessee was one of the joint owner in the properties located at 11/10A & 10B, S.C. Chatterjee Street, Konnagar Hooghly. The share in the property was sold by the assessee along with the other owners for Rs. 16,50,000.00 which was registered at the office of ADSR, Serampore vide entry in the book number-I, CD volume No. 2 pages from 2337 to 2357 being Deed No. 00938 dated 15-2-2008 as det ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by observing that it is not possible to sale the land without the building. Moreover criminal proceedings were initiated against the parties to dupe the Revenue. The registry was made in favour of purchasers for the entire building and there was no separate registration deed for the land alone. Accordingly the AO worked out the share of the assessee in the sale consideration for Rs. 22,25,225.00 being 8.58% on Rs. 2,59,35,020.00. 4. Assessee preferred an appeal to learned CIT-A. The assessee before the learned CIT-A submitted that all the Sellers of the impugned property belong to a family being brothers and mother. As per the understanding between all the members of the family Mr. Samar Roy Chowdhury developed the building at his own cos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y A.O. while computing capital gains. In view of the above facts which has clearly been brought out by A.O. in his order which clearly points out to under valuation, to avoid payment of tax under the head Capital Gains, A.O.'s determination of income under the head capital gains under section 50C is accepted." 5. Being aggrieved by the order of learned CIT-A assessee is in 2nd appeal before us. The learned AR before us filed paper books along with supplementary paper book which are running from pages 1 to 134. The learned AR before us submitted that indeed the building was constructed on the land but it only belonged to Mr. Samar Roy Chowdhury and assessee has no connection either directly or indirectly with the impugned building. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been adjudicated in the absence of documentary evidence. However in our view the lower authorities before reaching to the conclusion should have cross verified the contention of the assessee from Mr. Samar Roy Chowdhury which they failed to do so. Therefore in the interest of Justice and fair play we're inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee to submit his arguments with documentary evidence to justify his claim. Hence we restore this ground of appeal of the assessee to the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with the law and in the light of above is stated discussion. Thus the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The 2nd issue raised by assessee in this appeal is that learned CIT- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
