9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1349X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d order qua the Gut No.222/13 that Sh. Vilas Keshavrao Autade entered into agreement for jointly developing and selling the land which covered Gut No.222/13. Other four co-owners had some right and interest in the said land at Gut No.222/13. To purchase their right, a total sum of ₹ 50.00 lakh was paid by the assessee and Sh. Vilas Keshavrao Autade. On 17-08-2013, Sh. Vilas Keshavrao Autade entered into sale deed for transfer of his land admeasuring 80R out of Gut No.222/13 in favour of two sons of the assessee and no payment was made by the assessee or his sons towards acquiring the share in Gut No.222/13 along with Vilas Keshavrao Autade. This shows that sum of ₹ 25.00 lakh paid by the assessee along with Sh. Vilas Keshavrao ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Appellant : Shri M.K.Kulkarni And Ms. J.R. Chandekar For the Respondent : Shri S.P. Walimbe ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(Appeals)-2, Aurangabad on 16-09-2015 in relation to the assessment year 2005-06. 2. This appeal is time barred by 31 days. The assessee has filed a condonation application with necessary affidavit giving the reasons for the delay. I am satisfied with the same. The delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for disposal on merits. 3. The ld. AR did not press Ground no.2 challenging the initiation of re-assessment proceedings, which is hereby dismissed. Ground No.3 challenging the granting approval for re-assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5,160/- and thereafter, granted deduction towards indexed cost of acquisition at ₹ 2,36,860/-. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the non- granting of exemption u/s.54F and not granting deduction of ₹ 25.00 lakh which was paid by the assessee to other co-owners. 6. I have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. The first issue taken up by the assessee is about non-granting of deduction of ₹ 25.00 lakh which the assessee claimed to have paid to other co-owners in connection with the property transferred. The facts apropos this issue are that the assessee sold plot of land along with other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s Bhosale Builders resulting in the receipt of consideration of ₹ 28.35 lakh by the assessee. Since the full value of consideration, subject matter of the capital gain under consideration, did not have any relation with Gut No.222/13 in respect of which the assessee along with Sh. Vilas Keshavrao Autade paid a total sum of ₹ 50.00 lakh to the other four co-owners, this transaction of payment in my opinion has rightly been disassociated from the computation of capital gain from transfer to Gut Nos. 222/1 to 222/6. The compromise deed dated 19-11-2011 also mentions in para 4(a) that the aforesaid amount of ₹ 50.00 lakh was given to Plaintiff Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 towards their ownership, possession and right in the land at G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntenanced on this score. 8. The other contention raised by the assessee is about non-granting of exemption u/s.54F of the Act. The assessee claimed that he purchased a residential house on 04-10-2004 for a sum of ₹ 16,03,820/- and thus claimed exemption in the computation of income filed by him in response to notice u/s.148. This claim was jettisoned by the AO on the ground that the assessee did not purchase a new residential flat but only an office premises and hence, section 54F could not apply. It is apparent from bare reading of section 54F that the exemption becomes available towards capital gain arising from the transfer of any long term capital asset on purchasing or constructing one residential house in India. Thus, it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
