TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 1034X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e fact that the assessee was holding 50% share in the property along with his brother as per sale agreement and both the owners have entered in to sale agreement with the purchaser and hence the resultant Long Term Capital Gain was taxable in his hands. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the facts that the Assessing Officer has rightly treated the gift as an invalid gift since gift declaration was not registered with the Sub-Registrar and as per Transfer of Property Act, the gift was incomplete unless the ownership / right of the property is transferred from one person to another. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present appeal by the revenue are as fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arrived at somewhere in April 2005 and pursuant to the said family arrangement assessee had given up his share of right, title and interest over the property in favour of his brother Mr. N.K.Chaturvedi. The assessee also submitted that Mr. N.K.Chaturvedi had declared capital gain on sale of the properpty after excluding the sum of ₹ 5.00 lacs received by the assessee and the same has been accepted by the revenue. It was thus argued that the capital gain in question has already been taxed in the hands of Mr. N.K.Chaturvedi and cannot be again brought to tax in the hands of the assessee in respect of the half share of the sale consideration. 3. The AO did not accept the plea of the assessee. According to him the family arrangement p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The LTCG from sale of property is computed @ 50% share of property sold i.e. .. Rs.27,50,000/- Less: Indexed cost = 477625 x 497/199 .. ₹ 11,92.862/- Long Term Capital GaIn .. Rs.15,57,1381- Accordingly LTCG of ₹ 15,57,1381- was added to the income. 4. On appeal by the assessee the CIT(A) held that the entire capital gain had already been taxed in the hands of the assessee s brother and, therefore, there was no question of tax avoidance. The CIT(A) also held that the family arrangement pleaded by the assessee was bona fide and that it does not require any registration or conveyance. The CIT(A) also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly in April, 2005, there was a family arrangement between the Assessee and his brother N.K.Chaturvedi. The Assessee and N.K.Chaturvedi, were sons of late Shri B. N. Chaturvedi. N.K.Chaturvedi and the Assessee were owners of one half share each of the residential property situated at 64, Green Garden Apartments, Acharya Nagar, Deonar, Mumbai 400 088, (hereinafter referred as said bungalow no 64). This is property which was sold giving raise to capital gain the chargeability of which is in dispute in this appeal. While acquiring the said bungalow N.K.Chaturvedi had contributed ₹ 5,67,625/- and the Assessee had contributed ₹ 4,77,625/-. There was another house in the same society i.e. bungalow No.61, Green Garden Apartments, Achary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that he can continue to reside there without any hassle whatsoever. 6. The above family arrangement was entered sometime prior to 11/4/2005 and these facts have been affirmed in an affidavit dated 11/4/2005 by Mr. N.K.Chaturvedi. The law is well settled that family arrangement entered into with a view to resolve family disputes, which is bonafide, voluntary and not induced by fraud, coercion or undue influence does not require registration. Such family arrangements by itself would convey right, title and interest in immovable property without any further requirements. Thus when the property was sold on 31/3/2006, the assessee had no right whatsoever in the property but was entitled to receive only the contribution made by him at the time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
