Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 943 - ITAT AHMEDABADCapital gain computation - real owner of asset - In whose hands the short term capital gains on sale of land is to be assessed - whether in the hands of the assessee as claimed by the Revenue or the company, to which with the assessee attributes the transaction? - HELD THAT:- In a nutshell the concurrent finding of facts, both by the AO and the ld. CIT(A) which have remained uncontroverted before us, are that the impugned land was purchased in the individual name of the assessee out of sources which are not attributable to the company viz. “KIDPL” ,to which the assessee relates the transaction pertained to;that the assessee had entered into agreement with the “KIDPL” for development of the said land, and the sale proceeds from sale of the land was also received by the assessee. In view of the same we see no reason to interfere in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) who has correctly appreciated the facts of the case, found the transaction of purchase and sale of land completed in the hands of the assessee and accordingly held the short term capital gains earned thereon as being the income of the assessee. The claim of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the land was purchased by the assessee, as director of the company, clearly falls flat. AO and the ld. CIT(A), we find, have clearly mentioned that the land was purchased in the individual name of the assessee, and not as director of the company. Funds for the purpose of the land was also not found to be contributed by the company. The land having neither been purchased in the name of the company nor paid for by the company there is no case for treating the land as belonging to the company. Decided against assessee. Addition u/s. 68 - cash found in the bank account, source of which remained unexplained - HELD THAT:- As counsel though was unable to meet the adverse findings of the Ld. CIT(A), albeit relating to one bank account but at the same time the contention of assessee that the CIT(A) did not consider the other bank account of the assessee is also true. What emerges therefore is that the issue has not been considered in the complete perspective and needs to be considered afresh by CIT(A). We therefore restore the issue back to the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate it afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
|