Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (10) TMI 2119 - ITAT DELHI

2015 (10) TMI 2119 - ITAT DELHI - TMI - Power of CIT(A) to enhance the assessment u/s. 251(2) - enhancement in the sale consideration for the computation of capital gain - Held that:- CIT(A) issued notice u/s. 251(2) regarding enhancement in the sale consideration for the computation of capital gain is based on the sale of another floor of the same property, i.e., second floor. The assessee has placed no material on record to substantiate the sale proceeds of basement declared by it and conseque .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lity between basement and second floor of the property, appears to have given reasonable rebate while determining the sale value of basement at ₹ 1,58,25,000/- and after deducting indexed cost of property of ₹ 27,32,360/- worked out the capital gains at ₹ 1,30,92,640/- as against ₹ 19,09,720/- computed by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we find no justification to disturb the enhancement made by the ld. CIT(A) of ₹ 1,20,82,920/- to the total income of the assess .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n the same was deposited with the same bank. We, therefore, find no justification to interfere with the finding of the ld. CIT(A) that it is absurd to believe that somebody will withdraw cash from the bank, keep it idle with him and then deposit the same in the bank, particularly when no purpose for withdrawal was declared by the assessee before the authorities below. - Decided against the assessee. - ITA No. 5118/Del./2012 - Dated:- 5-10-2015 - Shri I. C. Sudhir , Judicial Member And Shri L. P. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Basement of property, A-140, Defence Colony, New Delhi to ₹ 1,58,25,000/- as against actual sale of ₹ 11,00,000/-. Thus, an addition of ₹ 1,20,82,920/- has been made as against loss of ₹ 15,58,784/-. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(Appeal) has erred in confirming an addition of ₹ 3,10,000/- made by the learned Assessing Officer on account of cash deposits in the Bank and ignoring the cash withdrawal from the same Bank. 2. The facts of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

for the assessment year 2005-06 and filed its return of income only in response to notice u/s. 153A of the Act. In the return of income, the assessee had claimed long term capital loss on property sale of ₹ 15,58,484/-. For legitimate claim of loss, the assessee was required to submit the return of income on or before the due date. The due date of filing of return of income for the assessment year 2005-06 was 31.07.2005, but no return was filed. Therefore, the claim of the assessee on acc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

orked out to ₹ 2,13,050/-. The assessee entered into an agreement for re-construction of this property on which enhancement was to be made by the builder. Therefore, the cost of acquisition in the hands of the assessee was the same as he received at the time of transfer in his name. The appellant received a consideration of ₹ 11,00,000/- for sale of basement of this property and while computing capital gain arising out of this property, the cost of acquisition was computed on the hig .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

377; 10,09,720/- was computed as long-term capital gain and the same was assessed in his hands as income from long-term capital gains. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed (i) copy of gift deed (ii) copy of collaboration agreement (iii) copy of sale deed (iv) valuation report made by the registered valuer as on 01.04.1981 and cost of construction for 2003-04. The AO had made assessment accordingly. 3. Against the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ilding under consideration. The dimension of the property is 274 Sq. Yards. It means basement, ground floor, first floor and second floor is of 1644 Sq. ft. each. The second floor of the property with entire terrace right had been sold to one Mr. Naveen Goel S/o Late Shri S.R. Goel and Mrs. Vicky Goel w/o Sh. Naveen Goel, resident of 152, Madhuvan, New Delhi-110 092 for ₹ 1.20 crores and registered accordingly. In search operation, another agreement was found dated 09.10.2006 for sale of t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e, he made assessment by making addition of ₹ 1,20,82,920/- in the capital gain computed by the Assessing Officer. 4. During the assessment proceedings, the AO also found cash deposit in bank account for ₹ 3,10,000/-. According to the AO, the assessee could not give proper explanation. He, therefore, added the above unexplained deposit in the bank account to the total income of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the above addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

basement. During the course of search, he submitted necessary documents of sale proceeds of property before the search team and offered the same for taxation, as while filing his return of income, he had not declared the capital gain on the sale proceeds of property as it was loss from the sale of basement. He also contended that neither the Assessing Officer nor the Appellate Authority has a technical knowhow except valuation by the valuer on which it may be determined that the value of baseme .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and unjustified especially when the appeal is made by the assessee before the CIT(A). Thus, the acquisition cost taken by the Assessing Officer as ₹ 92,280/- is not correct whereas the cost of construction of the basement is ₹ 11,84,000/- as valued by the registered government valuer. 6. Similarly with respect to cash deposit in the bank account, it was submitted that the assessee has withdrawn cash from bank and deposited it into the bank account frequently and also submitted the c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he capital asset became the property of the assessee- (i) on any distribution of assets on the total or partial partition of a Hindu undivided family; (ii) under a gift or will; (iii) (a) by succession, inheritance or devolution, or (b) on any distribution of assets on the dissolution of a firm, body of individuals, or other association of persons, where such dissolution had taken place at any time before the 1st day of April, 1987, or (c) on any distribution of assets on the liquidation of a co .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

be deemed to be the cost for which the previous owner of the property acquired it, as increased by the cost of any improvement of the assets incurred or borne by the previous owner or the assessee, as the case may be. Explanation.-In this sub-section the expression "previous owner of the property" in relation to any capital asset owned by an assessee means the last previous owner of the capital asset who acquired it by a mode of acquisition other than that referred to in clause (i) or .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lso failed to substantiate its stand by any cogent evidence on record that the area in which the property was located, was a flooded area. No certificate or evidence from Municipal Corporation is available on record to justify stand of the assessee and the value declared by him. On the other hand, the ld. CIT(A) keeping in view the sale value of second floor of same property and ratio of utility between basement and second floor of the property, appears to have given reasonable rebate while dete .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version