Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 350 - ITAT MUMBAIClubbing of income - addition of portion of sales consideration related to wife and mother of assessee u/s 64(1) - Sale of property - whether sale consideration is to be divided only between two persons? - AO observed that the sale consideration was distributed among 4 persons , whereas the cost of purchase was borne by two persons only - CIT(A) confirmed the addition on a different ground by stating that the addition should have been made under Section 64(1) of the Act by applying clubbing provisions - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that all the four persons had come forward to sign the agreement of sale dated 20.1.2015 pursuant to which , capital gains became assessable. There is no dispute that the flats were ultimately sold together with the rights in leasehold property , rights in membership etc which were owned by all the four persons and which remained with the individuals and were never transferred to the firm. Logically the sale consideration is to be distributed between four persons. In view of that, a portion of sale consideration is required to be assigned to the rights of membership etc which were not given to the firm. Therefore, there is no transfer from husband to wife of any right or any value. In view of that no value can be assigned under Section 64(1) of the Act by applying clubbing provisions thereon. Moreover, we find that the ld CITA grossly erred in applying the clubbing provisions u/s 64(1) of the Act even for mother. Admittedly, as per law, the same could be applied only for spouse and for son’s wife. Hence the addition sustained by the ld CIT(A) deserves to be deleted on this count itself. We find from the income tax returns of Smt. Krishna Ved and Smt Krupa Ved for the Asst Year 2015-16, which are forming part of the paper books filed before us, they had duly disclosed the capital gains attributable to their share without claiming any deduction towards cost of acquisition. We find from the computation of income for the Asst Year 2015-16 of both the ladies, that they were conscious of their income tax obligations and had duly disclosed the share of their sale consideration as long term capital gains (without any cost) and had duly claimed deduction u/s 54EC of the Act by making reinvestment in eligible bonds. We find that the ld AR submitted that the returns filed by two ladies have been accepted by the department. Hence there is no need to bring to tax the very same sale consideration in the hands of assessee herein, inclusion of which , would only result in double taxation. Hence we hold that the entire addition made in the hands of the assessee is hereby directed to be deleted and grounds 1& 2 raised by the assessee are allowed.
|