TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 1334X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 75,00,000/- to tax. The assessee has executed the sale documents as absolute owner and further executed the receipt of ₹ 7.00 Crores as sale consideration. By executing the receipt of consideration of ₹ 7.00 Crores, the assessee acknowledged the consideration/sale price. We have seen that the said facts were considered and discussed by the CIT(A) in his order. The order of CIT(A) is reasoned one and does not require any interference at our end. - decided against assessee. - ITA No.7871/Mum/2011 - - - Dated:- 13-4-2016 - SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri Firoz B. Andhyarujina (AR) For the Respondent : Shri U.B.Jakke (DR) ORDER PER PAWAN S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee further explained that due to delay the development agreement was converted into sale of said property and the assessee got balance amount of ₹ 6,25,00,000/- which has been offered to tax in the year under consideration. The assessee further submitted that the reference of joint development agreement is duly reflected in conveyance deed and therefore, nothing was concealed from the department. The assessee was asked to furnish the return of income on mother of the assessee but the same was not filed, hence, the LTCG was considered at the sale consideration of ₹ 7 Crores and the AO calculated the LTCG in the assessment order dated 30.12.2010. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that mother did not Retain the advance of 75 lacs in her own rights because she had gifted the ownership of the property to appellant shortly. If the 75 lacs was were to be retained by the mother in her own right then it would not be a capital receipt because there was no transfer of any rights(capital assets) by the mother to the developer in pursuance to the agreement dated 5.2.2003. Under such circumstances, ₹ 75 lacs have been received and retained by mother would amount to a receipt of sum of money without consideration and is liable to De taxed u/s 56(v) of the I.T. Act in hands of the mother as income from other sources. The Ld. AR has not been able to give any evidence even during the appellate proceedings to show mat the moth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uction. In effect, the essence of the transaction would have remained the same if the mother refunded ₹ 75 lacs to developer and then the developer paid ₹ 7 Crores to appellant or whether the developer paid only net amount of 6.25 Crores after adjusting the earlier advance of 75 lacs made to mother. It was in the nature of a mere family arrangement between appellant and her mother by not recovering the ₹ 75 lacs already received by the mother. Thus the adjustment of ₹ 75 lacs given by developer earlier as advance against the property to the mother of the appellant is only an application of sale consideration received by applicant and not a diversion at source by virtue of any overriding title over the property. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
