9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1093X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 29.02.2016, there was no representation by the Assessee when the matter posted on several days except on 16.09.2015 where the matter could not be heard for want of time and on 21.07.2016 where the Bench did not function on that day. Inspite of issue of notices by registered post acknowledgement due fixing the date of hearing on 28.03.2016, the notices returned unserved with an endorsement that the notice was unclaimed. Similarly the notice issued fixing the date of hearing on 29.12.2016 was returned unserved with an endorsement that the Assessee is left. Therefore, since the Assessee is not appearing, we heard the Ld. DR and dispose of this appeal on merits. 3. The Ld. DR submits that the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd she has merely signed the document as a co-owner for the name sake. Therefore, the Assessee pleaded before the Ld. CIT (Appeals) the addition made in the hands of the Assessee should be deleted. The Ld. DR submits that the Ld. CIT (Appeals) considering the submissions of the Assessee and the evidences on record confirmed the assessment for the reason that the Assessee could not prove that the property did not belong to her but belonged to her husband. Ld. DR further submits that the husband of the Assessee also did not declare the capital gain in his return of income. Therefore, the Ld. DR vehemently placing reliance on the orders of the Ld.CIT (Appeals) submits that the action of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) in confirming the addition is justi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rely a joint /co-owner for the name sake only. I have considered this contention of the appellant. It may be seen that the husband of the appellant Shri Naresh Khemani has also submitted a letter through A.R.. He has basically contended that the addition in the hand of wife should be deleted. However, the appellant has not been able to prove that she is not the substantial owner of the property. When a property is owned, it definitely attracts capital gain which has to be borne by the owner or co-owner in proportion to their respective shares, but such claim can only be entertained if the appellant discharges its onus that the property in question belongs to someone else by giving his/her Income Tax Return details, PAN NO. , Bank A/c. No. a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee as well as her husband vide agreement dated 15.05.2001 from Sheth Developers Ltd. for a sale consideration of Rs. 9,05,625/- and the said flat was sold by the Assessee vide agreement for sale dated 23.10.2008 to Mr Raju Soni & Mrs Shobhana B Soni for consideration of Rs. 36,51,000/-. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the Assessing Officer should compute the long term capital gains instead of assessing the entire sale consideration as income from other sources. Thus, we restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to compute the capital gains in the hand of the Assessee as well as in the hands of the co-owner of the property i.e. the Assessee's husband in the light of our observations and after providing adequate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
