9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 921X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in the hands of the assessee. Extent of ownership of the assessee - assessee claimed that it is an ancestral property which was owned by three co-owners - HELD THAT:- Both the sale deed have been executed by two co-owners and the sale consideration has been bifurcated amongst three persons. In these facts and circumstances, we find no merit in the orders of the authorities below and direct the Assessing Officer to adopt 1/3rd net capital gains in the hands of the assessee and balance 1/3rd share in the hands of the Shri Anil Swarup. Cost of improvement claimed 100% - said expenditure was disallowed as no evidence was filed by the assessee - HELD THAT:- We are of the view that principle of justice would meet in case 1,00,000/- each is allowed as cost of improvement. Accordingly, we hold so. Addition made on account of cash deposits in the bank accounts - unexplained deposits in HDFC bank and unexplained deposits in State Bank of India - HELD THAT:- Assessee had failed to produce the necessary evidence with regard to the cash deposits and also the source of cash deposits before Assessing Officer. In the interest of justice, we are of the view that the onus is upon the assessee to s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing Officer during the assessment proceedings noted that the circle rate of the said property was ₹ 1,16,74,725/- as against the sale consideration shown at ₹ 38,92,000/-. The assessee explained that the property in question was under dispute for a long time and documents regarding litigation were filed before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer also noted from the property documents that the said property was registered in the name of two persons i.e. Shri Alok Swarup and Shri Anil Swarup; but the assessee has declared 1/3rd share in the said property. The assessee was asked to explain the same. The Assessing Officer also asked the assessee to produce evidences regarding cost of improvement at ₹ 5,69,000/-. The assessee in its reply along with affidavit claimed that the property in question was ancestral and it was mutated in the assessee's and his brother's name in revenue record, though the property belongs to three persons. The Assessing Officer on verification of the sale deed noted that the property was sold by two owners i.e. Shri Alok Swarup and Shri Anil Swarup S/o Late Vinod Kunwar Singh and concluded that the two were co-owners and M/s. V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the said cost of improvements has been allowed in the hands of M/s V.K. Singh (HUF). The next aspect which was pointed out by the Ld. AR for the assessee was that the said asset was owned by three co-owners i.e. Shri Alok Swarup, Shri Anil Swarup and M/s V.K. Singh (HUF). First of all, he pointed out that in the hands of the M/s V.K. Singh (HUF), 1/3rd share was declared and has been accepted; in the succeeding year also, same transaction has been accepted. Our attention was drawn to the copy of sale deed which is placed at page 254 to 289 of the year under consideration and at pages 207 to 235 for the succeeding year. He pointed out that the same narration was there in the two sale deeds and joint co-ownership of three persons has been accepted. As regards ground no.5 linked to the issue of computation of income from capital gains, the same was not pressed by the Ld. AR for the assessee. 9. The Ld. DR for the Revenue pointed out that the claim of the land being owned by three entities has to be proved by the documents. The sale deed talks of two persons, though in the return of income, the capital gains has been declared in three hands. He placed reliance on the orders of aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n assessed in its hands. The same income now cannot be assessed in the hands of balance of two co-owners. Another point also to be noted is that in the succeeding year, similar transaction of sale of similar piece of land jointly owned by three co-owners was declared i.e. 1/3rd share each and same has been accepted in each of the hands. Our attention was drawn to the sale deed for the year under consideration and also for the succeeding year. Both the sale deed have been executed by two co-owners and the sale consideration has been bifurcated amongst three persons. In these facts and circumstances, we find no merit in the orders of the authorities below and direct the Assessing Officer to adopt 1/3rd net capital gains in the hands of the assessee and balance 1/3rd share in the hands of the Shri Anil Swarup. 13. Now coming to the last linked issue i.e. cost of improvement claimed at ₹ 5,69,000/-(100%). The said expenditure was disallowed as no evidence was filed by the assessee. We are of the view that principle of justice would meet in case ₹ 1,00,000/- each is allowed as cost of improvement. Accordingly, we hold so. Thus, the ground of appeal nos. 3 and 4 are allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
