9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 844X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of Late Shri Saifulla Abubakar Inamdar (ITA No.174/PUN/2017) are that the Assessing Officer (AO) got information about the assessee having transferred two properties situated at C.S. No.1845 K 1 to 13, 1845 KH/1 to 5 (East side) and C.S.No.1845 K 1 to 13, 1845 KH/1 to 5 (West side) situated at A Ward, Tal-Karveer, Dist. Kolhapur for a consideration of Rs. 35,75,000 and Rs. 38,25,000, respectively. The AO observed that the stamp value of these properties was Rs. 1,19,11,000 and Rs. 1,12,72,000, respectively. As the sale deeds were executed on 25.07.2008, the AO opined that the transfer took place on such date only. Taking into consideration the property ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee contended before the ld. CIT(A) that the land sold by the assessee was sanadi land which was received by his forefathers from Sansthanik as Inam issued by the then Chatrapati. Since the Inam did not have any cost of acquisition, the assessee submitted that the capital gain was not chargeable to tax. As this issue was taken before the ld. CIT(A) for the first time, the ld. CIT(A) called for a remand report from the AO. The AO, in his remand report dated 03.12.2015, submitted that the assessee had not taken any such Inami land issue before him. The ld. CIT(A) vide para 5 of his order, firstly, held that the document placed on record issued by Tahsildar, Karveer, Dist. Kolhapur in respect of Inami land was in torn condition and not leg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y provisions for computing the capital gains failed. In support of the said contention, the assessee placed before the ld. CIT(A) some documents asserting Inam Patrak containing the entry of impugned land which was in torn condition and not legible. The ld. CIT(A) rejected the assessee‟s contention on the ground that the same was not legible. The second view canvassed by the assessee that there was no cost of acquisition in view of such property being received as Inam, the ld. CIT(A) observed that payment of Nazarana to the Govt. of Maharashtra was a pre-condition to receive a marketable title and for transfer of such land, such payment of Nazarana would constitute the cost of acquisition. The ld. AR submitted that there was no such p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
