Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (6) TMI 710 - AT - Income TaxTransfer of land - ownership - Joint development agreement - main plea of the assessee is that the property is a subject matter of transfer u/s. 2(47)(v) does not belong to the assessee and it belongs to the HUF u/s 153A - Already offered for tax in the hands of HUF – Held that:- Following Narasimha Reddy, Hyderabad And Others Versus The Asst CIT Cent. Circle-1, Hyderabad[2014 (6) TMI 587 - ITAT HYDERABAD] - once the Department accepted the return of income declared by the HUF arising out of transfer of capital asset vide development agreement - it is not proper to tax the same in the hands of the assessee in any assessment year which amounts to double taxation - the lower authorities are not justified in taxing the capital gain arising out of transfer of capital asset vide development agreement. The entire control over the property was with the assessee inasmuch as the licence to construct the property was also in the name of the assessee - It was found that execution of the agreement could not amount to transfer as contemplated u/s 53A of the Transfer of Property Act – Decided in favour of Assessee. Addition of value of gold and jewellery – Held that:- Following Narasimha Reddy, Hyderabad And Others Versus The Asst CIT Cent. Circle-1, Hyderabad [2014 (6) TMI 587 - ITAT HYDERABAD] – assessee rightly contended that the jewellery found at the residence of the assessee is not only belongs to the assessee but also belongs to the family members of the assessee and the same should be considered as per the CBDT circular 1916 dated 11.5.1994 - thus, the matter is required to the be remitted back to the AO to give credit to gold and jewellery to each member of the assessee's family members in terms of CBDT circular No. 1916 dated 11.5.1994 if they are living under single roof as supported by documentary evidence – Decided partly in favour of Assessee. Addition of undisclosed consideration – Purchase of agricultural land – Held that:- The addition was made on the basis of a statement recorded from the assessee u/s. 132(4) of the Act at the time of search - the assessee filed a letter dated 15.12.2010 ad stated that the consideration paid was only Rs. 8.92 lakhs - There was no other evidence other than the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act – revenue also examined the vendor who has also confirmed that the consideration received is Rs. 8.92 lakhs only – assessee aged about 70 years - the pattern of answering giving minute details with cheque numbers at the odd hours of the day by a person of 70 years old is itself unusual and it cannot be considered as conclusive evidence - The addition cannot be made on presumptive basis – thus, the addition cannot be confirmed in the absence of corroborative evidence – Decided in favour of Assessee.
|