9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d prior to the date of sale. Once the assessee was not the owner of the property, there could obviously have been no question of allowing exemption u/ss.54B or 54F - To that extent, the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) is correct. Once the assessee is not entitled to exemption because he was not the owner of the property transferred, there can be no question of computing any capital gain in his hands from the transfer of the same property. Assessee did compute capital gain in his return of income and thereafter claimed exemptions u/ss.54B and 54F of the Act. Simply because such a computation of capital gain was made on an ill-advice, cannot bind the assessee for the times to come, if, in fact, he was not liable for such capital gain. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Member For the Assessee : Ms. Daini Shinde For the Revenue : Shri S.P. Walimbe ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : These two appeals by different but connected assessees arise out of separate orders, both dated 10.03.2017, passed by the CIT(Appeals)-9, Pune in relation to the assessment year 2012-13. Since common issues have been raised in these appeals, we are, therefore, disposing them off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. SHIVRAM R. BANKAR : 2. Firstly, we take up the appeal filed by Shivram R. Bankar. As against 10 grounds raised in the original Memorandum of Appeal, the assessee has filed concise grounds running into four grounds, which have only one issue, which is being discussed he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the amount received to the tune of ₹ 21.50 lakh in the capacity of Approver. It was so claimed on the ground that Family partition took place before effecting the transfer of property and the land in question was partitioned in favour of his sons. In support of such a claim, the assessee filed a copy of Partition Deed. The ld. CIT(A) accepted the assessee s contention and then came to hold that the assessee was not eligible for exemptions u/s.54B and 54F because the ownership of the property did not vest in him and hence the exemption was not available. The assessee has come up in appeal against such finding. 3. We have heard both the sides through virtual court and gone through the relevant material on record. A copy of Sale de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... land on the date of transfer therefore no capital gain would arise to the appellant . From the above findings recorded by the ld. CIT(A), it becomes apparent that he accepted the assessee s claim that he was not owner of the property at the time of sale inasmuch as the Partition deed, transferring interest in the property to his sons, was executed prior to the date of sale. Once the assessee was not the owner of the property, there could obviously have been no question of allowing exemption u/ss.54B or 54F of the Act. To that extent, the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) is correct. Once the assessee is not entitled to exemption because he was not the owner of the property transferred, there can be no question of computing any capital gain i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sideration. 5. The ld. AR has invited our attention towards page 5 of the written submissions which indicate that the assessee received a sum of ₹ 21.50 lakh towards extinguishment of his right in the property at the time of sale. She raised no objection to the chargeability of this amount in the hands of the assessee as capital gain. We, therefore, direct the AO to consider the income chargeable under the head Capital gain in the hands of the assessee by taking full value of consideration towards extinguishment of his right in the property at ₹ 21.50 lakh. 6. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. SITARAM R. BANKAR : 7. The facts of the case of Sh. Sitaram R. Bankar are mutatis mutandis similar to those ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
