9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trict. The same was pointed out by the ITAT also in para 2 of its order. Accordingly, sale price is considered as ₹ 11 lakh. Vide sale deed No.27230 dated 17-11-2006 executed by the assessee as a vendor, it was mentioned in the document that assessee is executing the said sale deed as a HUF and his share was mentioned as 3/4th and the remaining 1/4th of the share pertains to his son Sri N.Praveen Kumar. Hence the quantum of amount in the hands of the assessee is considered at ₹ 8,25,000/- (3/4th of ₹ 11,00,000/-). While confirming the addition made by the AO, the CIT(A) observed that the AO has duly complied with all the directions of the Hon ble ITAT and has given his findings on each of the four issues after examining ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing full knowledge of the contents of the letter. 5. The Hon'ble CIT (A) ought to have deleted the addition made by the assessing officer with regard to sale consideration in the absence of any material on record to support the conclusion of the assessing officer that the sale price amounted to ₹ 11,00,000/- and assessee share was ₹ 8,25,000/- as both figures were without any basis. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition made by the assessing officer. 7. Any other ground will be raised at the time of hearing. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee being a HUF, sold his land of Acre 0.30 guntas situated at Sy.No.139 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aking the addition of ₹ 8,25,000/- on account of long term capital gains by observing in the assessment order as under: 2.2 Regarding the arriving sale price: The assessee vide letter dated 03-122008 filed in this office on 04-12-2008 has stated that he has received ₹ 11, 00, 000/ - from the purchaser towards sale of Ac. O. 30 guntas situated in Sy.No.139/ AA2, Malkapur village Kondapur mandal, Medak District. The same was pointed out by the ITAT also in para 2 of its order. Accordingly, sale price is considered as ₹ 11 lakh. 2.3 Regarding the bringing of quantum of amount in the hand the assessee: Vide sale deed No.27230 dated 17-11-2006 executed by the assessee as a vendor, it was mentioned in the document that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T Act. Malkapur village is abutting Sangareddy municipality, adjacent to Mumbai national highway. A copy of Map, indicating location of Malkapur, is attached to this order as Annexure-I. Therefore, as the area falls within 5 KM distance from nearest Sanga Reddy municipality, it does not qualify as a agricultural land within the meaning of section 2(l4)(iii)(b) of I. T Act, and hence partakes the character of a capital asset. The capital gain is thus chargeable to tax. 2.5 Determination of correct status: In this regard, in the sale deed No.27230 dated 17-11-2006 itself. it was mentioned that the sale deed is being executed by the assessee in his HUF status to the extent of his 3/4th of share in Ac. O. 30 guntas. In the submissions made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he registered document. Further, the sale price that might have been mentioned in the transaction between Smt. Bhagya Laxmi and others or in the general letter filed which was signed by the assessee without understanding the contents cannot be the basis for computing the total income. Hence, the Hon'ble CIT(A) is requested to delete the addition made by the assessing officer. 4. The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee, confirmed the order of AO by observing as under: I have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant as well as the order of the Assessing officer. From the assessment order reproduced in Para 6.1 above, it can be seen that the A.O. has duly complied with all the directions of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 6. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the original assessment order, the AO concluded the sale price at ₹ 24,91,860/- and the present AO fixed the sale price at ₹ 11 lakhs itself shows that there is no clarity or proper conclusion with regard to sale price of the said property. He further submitted that in the absence of any supporting material or any proper evidence or any proper conclusion the amount adopted by the AO at ₹ 11 lakhs as sale price cannot be held as valid. 7. On the other hand, ld. DR submitted that the sale value of the land is taken at ₹ 11,00,000/- as per the assessee s own letter dated 04/12/2008. He, therefore, objected to the submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
