9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ared in the respective return of the assessee and his two sons, it is not therefore, justified to include the entire capital gain in the hands of the assessee alone. We are of the considered view that the A.O should assess the capital gain at 1/3rd as shown by the assessee and delete rest of the addition. In view thereof, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the A.O with a direction to give effect to our order as per terms aforestated. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No. 2082/PUN/2017 - - - Dated:- 12-5-2022 - Shri R.S. Syal, Vice President And Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri Deepak Sasar For the Respondent : Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er observed that the Assessee has shown full value consideration at Rs.74,19,494/- and deduction u/s. 54B at Rs. 61,50,169/-. The net balance being Rs.1,57,239/-. In response to the notice u/s. 142(1) 143(2) the Assessee stated before the Assessing Officer that, out of the total consideration on sale of agricultural land situated at Survey No.67 at Kharadi Pune on 06.08.2011, he and his wife Latabai pathare had received consideration of Rs. 50,00,000/-. As there was a difference in the total consideration shown in the Return of Income and as claimed in response to the notices the Assessing Officer required the Assessee to reconcile the difference with supporting proof like mutation register, proof of agricultural activities, copies of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The said application has been reproduced by the A.O in the assessment order along with the copy of the directions issued by the Jt. C.I.T. The Jt. C.I.T. reiterating certain facts stated that, the 7/12 extract mentioned on the name of the assessee and did not contain the names of any other persons with whom he was seeking to share the tax liability of capital gain. The J.t. CIT also pointed out that the deed of conveyance dated 6-8-2011 mentioned only Shri Bhagwan Pathare as one of the vendors and did not have the names of any of the family members in whose hands the assessee had sought to share his taxability of Capital Gains. The names of the other parties were mentioned as confirming parties whereas the vendors are stated to be the own ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee's right in the sale consideration was not less than 1/3rd. The Assessing Officer also observed that, the conveyance Deed named the Assessee as one of the vendors and other members to whom the consideration was paid was neither the owner or confirming parties to the conveyance deed. The Assessing Officer held the assessee‟s share in the sales consideration to be Rs. 2,62,58,480/-. The total consideration for the land was at Rs. 7,56,86,200/-. The A.O allowed the reinvestment to the extent of Rs. 48,33,750/-. 6. The assessee took the matter before the ld. CIT(A) and submitted detailed written submissions. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the written submissions of the assessee as well as the assessment order held as follows ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the land belonged to his grandfather thereby indicating that it was ancestral land. The claim of ancestral land remains unsubstantiated. Simply, because the land devolved from the grandfather does not make it ancestral property (land). The partition between the other members like the Appellant s father, uncle, Appellant himself, his brothers and cousins in 1994 does not give support to the Appellant s claim of ancestral land. Similarly, the mutation deed is between the grandfather and his brother stating that the land is cultivated by the brother Shri Balu Maruti Pathare and therefore, the name of the grandfather Shri Govind Maruti Pathare should be deleted and the name of Balu Maruti Pathare should be entered. It was noted on the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been sharing his liability of taxability of Capital Gains. In the deed .of conveyance dated 06.08.2011, only the Appellant is mentioned as one of the vendors of the property. The names of other members of the family of the Assessee are mentioned in the list as confirming parties and the deed states the vendors.to be the owners of the said property. The deed does not mention any of the confirming parties to be the owner of the said property in the deed. The AD therefore, has correctly held that the total Capital Gains for his share of the sale proceeds is liable to be taxed in the hands of the Appellant. The action of the AO therefore is upheld. The Assessing Officer is directed to Tax the capital gains in the right hands i.e, of the Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
