9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 808X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ether they have received the payments as laid out in the recitals of the sale deed dated 18.11.2012. If the assessee’s claim is found to be factually correct, then the AO shall adopt the sale consideration arising/accruing to the share of the assessee at ₹ 8 lakhs and re-compute the assessee’s LTCG on sale of the aforesaid property at Baluvanahalli, Kolar Dist accordingly complete the assessment for Assessment Year 2013-14 in the case on hand. Assessee’s appeal allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No. 2512/Bang/2018 - - - Dated:- 13-2-2019 - SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri. V. Chandrashekar, Advocate For The Revenue : Smt. Lakshmi K, JCIT ORDER Per Jason P Boaz, Accountant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00/- Total Rs.80,00,000/- The aforesaid property at Baluvanahalli was jointly purchased by the assessee s mother Smt. Nanjamma and her brother Shri. Venkatesh Gowda vide registered sale deed dated 16.01.1982. Subsequently, both these persons expired leaving behind their children as their legal heirs. 2.2 The AO, while assessing the income of the assessee arising from the sale of the aforesaid property at Baluvanahalli; under the head long term capital (LTCG), allowed the amount of ₹ 32 lakhs paid to the children of the late Shri. C. Venkatesh Gowda, as a reduction from the sale consideration of ₹ 40 lakhs directly received by him from the purchaser. Howev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 3. The learned CIT(A) was not justified in law and on facts in holding that the appellant's siblings did not possess any manner of right over the property, which is a perverse finding and was beyond the scope of the appeal, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned CIT(A) was not justified in stating that the AO has rejected the claim of the appellant in so far as the right of his siblings in the property was concerned, which is not borne out of record, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned CIT(A) was not justified on fact, in not holding that the revised computation as filed by the AR of the appellant was erroneous, in so far as the indexation of the capital asset was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of construction of a compound wall and a borewell, by appreciating that the same were present on the property, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. Without further prejudice, the resulting capital gains after adopting the amount of estimated improvements for indexation, the resulting capital gains was below the taxable limits in each of the individual members of the family and hence there arose no liability to tax. 12. The learned CIT(A) was not justified in not adjudicating the ground on the error apparent from record, in so far as the addition of ₹ 50,122/-, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 13. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest under section 234A and 2348 of the Act in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2; and reduces the same from the amount of ₹ 40 lakhs received by the assessee from the purchaser. On the other hand, I find that the AO, while computing the assessee s share of LTCG on sale of the Kolar property adds the sum of ₹ 40 lakhs received by the assessee s 4 siblings directly from the purchaser and which fact of receipt / payment is noticed from the recitals in the sale deed dated 18.11.2012. In my considered view, the AO s treatment of this amount of ₹ 40 lakhs directly received by the assessee s 4 siblings (viz., as per details extracted at para 2.1 of this order), who have a right in their mother s property, as part of the assessee s consideration for computation of his LTCG does not stand to reason. 4.2 In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
