Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 373 - AT - Income TaxJurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act – Sale of property – STCG or LTCG – Held that:- The assessee’s explanations could not convince the CIT – CIT was of the opinion that there is difference in the rate of tax between the two capital gains i.e. 30% and 20% respectively - assessment framed was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue - the assessee had declared ‘long term’ capital gains and their reinvestment as per Section 54F – there was no discussion at all about this factual position – not the assessee has placed proof of any enquiry conducted by the AO - lack of enquiry in a ‘regular’ assessment itself is erroneous and prejudicial to interest of the Revenue - neither there was any enquiry nor a view much less a possible one taken by the AO. The assessee has failed to place on record copies of the transactions and agreements to prove that Sh. ‘CP’ had acquired ownership and possession in the year 1991 or in any case before 11.08.2006 u/s 2(47)(v) of the Act – there was no fault with observations of the CIT that holding period of the capital asset is only from 11.08.2006 to 01.08.2008 i.e; less than 36 months which gives rise to ‘short term’ capital gains - assessee has not placed on record any evidence to prove his father’s ownership and possession before 11.08.2006 - ‘CP’ had acquired title and possession of the asset only on 11.08.2006 - the consequential capital gains are ‘short term’ only - on all counts i.e; treatment of capital gains as well as non-conducting of enquiry and no view formed by the AO in framing ‘regular’ assessment, the CIT has rightly assumed /exercised his jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act – Decided against Assessee.
|