9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 2028X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee. Therefore, we are of the opinion that AO and CIT(A) are not justifying this. We allow the appeal of the assessee and restore this issue to the file of AO and is directed to verify whether the sale proceeds received was distributed amongst co-sellers of the property and co-sellers have filed their individual returns. The AO is directed to verify the same and allow the claim. Ground allowed for statistical purposes. Deduction u/s 80C - HELD THAT:- As assessee did not file anything before us also, therefore we confirm the finding held by the Ld. CIT(A). In the result, appeal on this ground is dismissed. - ITA No. 2802/MUM/2017 - - - Dated:- 16-11-2017 - D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N. K. PRADHAN, ACCOUNTA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee is engaged in the business of trading in salt and declared income from business of Rs. 2,40,330/-, Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 15,73,301/- and Income from other sources of Rs. 3,30,470/-. Notice u/s.148 was issued as the appellant failed to offered LTCG in its return of income and the AO adopted the stamp duty valuation of Rs. 2,47,32,000/- u/s. 50C(1) of the Act on sale of immovable property as against the sale agreement value of Rs. 2,17,92,750/-. The appellant has also paid the stamp duty of Rs. 14,65,600/-. The AO rejected the argument of the appellant that the property was an ancestral property and belonged to four individuals namely, Harishchandra Rawajibhai Patel, Sitaram Rawajibhai Patel, Gitaben Arjun Patel and Dhansukhbhai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08) 301 ITR 134 and P.C.Nahata [247 ITR 274 SC], S. Khader Khan Son [300 ITR 157 Madras] Vinodkumar Solanki [233 ELT 157S.]. The learned AR relied upon the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Nagpur Vs. Kamlakar Moghe [2015] 64 taxmann.com 413. Learned AR relied upon the order of revenue authorities. 6. We have heard the rival contention of both the parties. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the assessee had shown the said property was an ancestral property belonging to four individuals namely, Harischandra Rawajibhai Patel, Sitaram Rawajibhai Patel, Gitaben Arjun Patel and Dhansukhbhai Patel. Due to fragmentation of law, the property was on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sale deed wherein all the assessee and three brothers name are mentioned in the sale deed. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case that AO is not justified in adding the Long Term Capital Gain in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, we are of the opinion that AO and CIT(A) are not justifying this. 8. We got support from the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of ACIT vs. Kamlakar Moghe [2015] 64 taxmann.com 413 (Bombay) wherein it is held as under: I. Section 48 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Computation of (Expenses in connection with transfer) - Assessee received a property with clause in his mother's will providing overriding title in favour of his three sisters - He paid certain a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
