9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 465X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration along other two co-owners being family members. Accordingly, the assessee claimed to have invested in his share the property for ₹31 lakhs only. Assessee before the CIT (A) claimed to allow the benefit of exemption under section 54 of the Act if the sum of ₹ 27 Lacs is treated as his income on account of relinquishment of his right the property. But the CIT (A) rejected the contention of the assessee by observing that the assessee has made a contradictory statement. As such the assessee before the learned CIT (A) claimed to have received consideration of ₹27 Lacs against the sale of bungalow No. 16 and which was invested in 16, Neelkanth Green Bungalow on 29/09/2009. CIT (A) misunderstood the claim of the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeal no.CIT(A)-2/181/ITO, Wd.2(1)(4)/2015-16 dated 06/10/2017 arising in the assessment order passed under s.143(3) r.w.s.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the Act ) dated 29/07/2015 relevant to Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1.01. That learned CIT(A)-2, Ahmedabad has erred in confirming addition of Long Term Capital Gain of ₹ 27,00,000/-. 1.02. That various reasons advanced by Learned CIT(A)-2, are contrary to the facts and circumstances of my case. 1.03. Therefore addition of ₹ 27,00,000/- confirmed by Learned CIT(A)-2, Ahmedabad should be deleted. 3. The int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roperty. 2. That the assessee received the said sum for the relinquishment of his right in the immovable property detailed as Bungalow No. 15 Ashwamegh, Satellite, Ahmedabad. It is because the assessee relinquished his right of the ownership before the date of the conveyance deed dated 18/08/2009. 3. The assessee relinquished his right in favor of the family members by registering the document dated 28/05/2008 (i.e., F.Y. 2008-09). 4. The assessee s claim that he did not receive any consideration against his relinquishment of right was not acceptable. 5. The assessee was the signatory of the conveyance deed of the bungalow no-16, ashwamegh, Ahmedabad which was sold to Shree Manojku ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of section 54 of the Act. However, the Ld. CIT (A) observed that the assessee was the owner of Bungalow No. 15 and 16 Ashwamegh, A bad along with his family members. As such the assessee relinquished his share in the ownership in ownership in Bungalow No. 15 without any consideration through the registered document in favor of his family members dated 27/05/2008. The Ld. CIT-A also observed that the assessee sold Bungalow No 16, Ashwamegh A bad as per the conveyance deed executed on 18/08/2009 and received consideration of ₹ 27,00,000/- against his share in the said Bungalow. After that assessee invested the sale proceeds ₹ 27,00,000/- and ₹ 4,00,000/- received from his father to purchase Bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the relinquishment of his right in the property against which it received consideration of ₹ 27,00,000.00. The assessee was the joint-owner in 2 bungalows bearing No. 15 and 16 located at Ashwamegh Ahmedabad along with his family members. The assessee claimed to have relinquished his right in bungalow No. 15 without any consideration in favor of his relatives. However, the AO was of the view that the assessee received consideration of ₹ 27 Lacs on account of relinquishment of his right in the property which was not disclosed in the income tax return. Accordingly, the AO treated such sum of ₹27 Lacs as income of the assessee under the head capital gain. The learned CIT (A) subsequently confirmed the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the assessee has invested in the bearing number 16, Neelkanth Green Bungalow on 29/09/2009. This fact for the purchase of bungalow No. 16, located at Neelkanth Green Bungalow on 29/09/2009 was not doubted by the authorities below. We are also conscious to the fact the relinquishment deed was made on 27/05/2008 FY 2008-09 corresponding to AY 2009-10 as evident from the relinquishment deed placed on pages 63 to 76 of the PB. Thus if any tax is required to be levied, then it has to be levied in the AY 2009-10. In view of the above, we conclude that the assessee was entitled to the benefit under section 54 of the Act in the given facts and circumstances. Accordingly, we are not incli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
