9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 628X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of building. 2. We have heard Ld. Representatives of both the parties and perused the material on record. Earlier appeal was dismissed for default which was restored by allowing Miscellaneous Application of the assessee. 3. The appeal is time barred by 50 days. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay explaining therein that impugned order was received on 11.03.2015. The husband of the assessee Shri Vikas Shukla was suffering from mouth cancer and required continuous attention and treatment and was admitted in hospital on 20.04.2014, thereafter, many times he was admitted to hospital later on the Chartered Accountant who was pre-occupied could only be attended on 17.03.2015. Again in the last week of March, 2015 asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2008, the value adopted for the purpose of payment of stamp duty by the State Government, in respect of the said transfer was Rs. 10 lakhs. The AO applied provisions of section 50C of the I.T. Act and made an addition of Rs. 9,90,000/- on this issue. In addition, the AO formed that the assessee had also sold factory building on the said land which was not appearing in the registered sale deed. Since, the assessee had transferred land and building together, the AO held that short term capital gain accrued to the assessee on account of transfer of the building was Rs. 10 lakhs which was also added to the income of the assessee. 6. The assessee challenged both the additions before Ld. CIT(A). The written submission of the assessee is reprod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... point of time did the appellant become the owner of the plot and was merely a representative of Sh. Umed Singh for the registry of the plot. Hence, to tax the same in her hands as LTCG is harsh ignoring the facts and genuinity of the case. The sale was in fact effected between Sh. Umed Singh (original owner and seller of the plot) and Sh. Vikas Shukla (Buyer). Further, the appellant in the relevant AY had routed an entry through the Capital Account of Rs. 2,50,000/- for the sale of land and building. Sir, in this respect I would like to submit that the same is only a book entry between the appellant and the Vikas Shukla (husband of the appellant). Further, this is merely a notional entry and there was no actual transaction. This entry was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ided sufficient opportunity to produce the evidence during the assessment proceedings, any such evidence at the appellate stage may kindly not be admitted. Moreover, the Ikrar Nama is not a registered document, therefore, its authenticity is doubtful. Further, in the capital account of the assessee an addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- has been shown on account of sale and land & building. It also shows that property in question belongs to assessee." 8. It may also be noted here that the assessee at the appellate stage made a request for admission of additional evidences which Ld. CIT(A) has allowed and admitted the additional evidences. 9. Ld. CIT(A) considering the explanation of the assessee and material on record did not accept contention of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Agarwal vs. Addl. CIT dated 10.07.2017 ITA No. 266/JP/2017 in which transaction conducted through General Power Attorney holder was not considered as transfer of property so as to attract capital gains. 11. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that assessee has shown the amount in question in her capital amount which was received through registered sale deed. Therefore, both the additions are justified. 12. We have considered the rival submissions. The assessee filed copy of the 'Ikrar Nama' dated 03.11.1995 which is executed by Shri Umed Singh owner of the property in question in favour of Shri Vikas Shukla for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-. It is signed by both the parties as well as witnes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould further mean that the sale consideration of property of Rs. 2,50,000/- has already been received by Shri Umed Singh being original owner of the property. These facts and material on record clearly suggest that the assessee acted as a General Power of Attorney Holder of the property in question on behalf of Shri Umed Singh original owner of the property. The right of assessee as a General Power of Attorney holder was not greater to that of the owner of the property i.e. earlier right in favour of Shri Umed Singh and later on right transferred in favour of her husband Shri Vikas Shukla. There was no justification for Ld. CIT(A) to doubt the Ikrar Nama executed between Sh. Umed Singh and Sh. Vikas Shukla because it is supported by the aff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
