9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 893X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al asset in question on 29.1.2008 for Rs. 12.75 lacs. He did not admit any capital gains. The Assessing Officer noticed to the same in the course of 'scrutiny'. He sought to assess the impugned capital gains. The assessee stated that there was no cost of acquisition forthcoming therefore computation of capital gains u/s48 of the Act was not possible. The Assessing Officer in assessment order dated 23.10.2010 observed that the assessee was a member of an HUF namely Bapubhai H Patel. Its registered partition before Sub-Registrar took place on 16.9.2005 and the assessee's was found to have acquired the capital asset in question in said partition deed. The same stated its value to be Rs. 55,050/-. The Assessing Officer in these facts was of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r than the will or inheritance. The appellant is trying to take refuge in the provisions or section 49(1) which is apparently misplaced. The appellant has not been able to give any documentary evidence or reliable proof tc show that the cost of acquisition of the land to his forefathers was NIL. The cost of acquisition is not MIL but it is not available with the appellant and, therefore, it cannot be taken M that the cost of acquisition is NIL. Accordingly, the claim of the appellant regarding explanation to Section 49(1) is, not accepted. The appellant has further submitted that the practical applicability of section 55 sub section fails because in the appellant's case, the date of acquisition by previous owner (as contemplated u/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion, the action of the A. O. in making the addition on account of long term capital gain on sale of land is upheld. The ground of appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The appellant has also mentioned in the written submission dated 02/09/2011 that without prejudice to the earlier submission regarding the capital gain, the appellant acquired the HUF property which is evident from the deed of partition dated 06/09/75 and, therefore, Vishnubhai B. Patel (HUF) is liable for capital gain and not Vishnubhai B. Patel (Individual). The argument has been mentioned in the written submission as ground No. 2. On perusal of the grounds of appeal, filed by the appellant it is noted that there is only one ground in the appeal filed in this office on 23/09 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The case file demonstrates that the said HUF holds a PAN (page no.78). Therefore, we observe that the assessee is not entitled to shift assessment of impugned capital gains in HUF's hands. Therefore, the assessee's arguments challenging assessment of capital gains in his hands rather than HUFs fail. 5. Now, we come to next argument of the assessee challenging valuation of the property on the basis of partition deed dated 16.9.1975. We have already narrated that this asset came from an earlier HUF after a registered partition. The value of the total assets was determined at Rs. 2,67,750/- and the impugned capital asset was valued at Rs. 55,050/-. We reiterate that that it's a duly registered document enjoying presumption of correctness. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
