TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er co-owners. We find that the assessee has placed on record the copy of two assessment orders passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, in the name of Kantaben Patel and Vipul Champakbhai Patel, though by different Assessing Officers of different wards. However, the facts remained the same that no such addition was made in case of other co-owners thought similar expenses were spent on their behalf by their relative and co-owners. It is settled law that the assessee cannot be treated as indifferently in respect of expenses or treatment of capital gain. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. Kumararani Meenakshi Achi [ 2006 (10) TMI 123 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ] held that during the same assessment year same quantity of wealth in possession of co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other co-owners has sold the agricultural land. The assessee having 6.67% shares in the land, along with other co-owners incurred expenses of Rs. 25,34,090/- for conversion charges of agricultural land to non-agricultural use. The assessee was asked to furnish the source of payment of such expenses/premium. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee not submitted any reply in her case. But the relative and co-owner namely Praveenbhai Patel submitted that such payment of premium of Rs. 16,92,669/-, Rs. 4,75,000/- and Rs. 2,67,669/- was paid by Natwarbhai, Champakbhai and Smt Parwatiben respectively. The Assessing Officer further recorded that the notice under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) was issued to them b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al gain. Since the assessee earned Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG), thus the assessee filed return of income in the impugned assessment year. As the assessee has no source of income, the expenses on behalf of her has been spent by the family members and other co-owners in the following manner; Natwarbhai Patel Rs. 16,92,669/- (PAN ACCPP 1100C), Champakbhai K Patel Rs. 4,75,000/- (PAN:CNYPP 0205 P), Parwatiben N Patel Rs.2,76,669/- (PAN:ADGPP 1884L), Praveenbhai K Patel Rs.1,00,000/- (PAN:ADGPP 4549L). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see is not supported by documentary evidence or any confirmation by the other co-owners. The copy of the assessment orders passed by ld AR for the assessee were passed by different assessing officer and they might have explained the source of expenses to the satisfaction of respective assessing officer. 8. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities carefully. We find that a very short controversy is involved in the present appeal. There is no dispute that that the assesseewas co-owner of agricultural land having 6.67% share in the said agricultural land. The assessee before transferring the land, paid conversion charges along with other co-owners. The case of assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that while making the assessment of the same property, the similar treatment should be granted. 10. In view of the above aforesaid factual and legal discussion and respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in Kumararani Meenakshi Achi (supra) and decision of Co-ordinate Bench in Prabhodhchandra Ambelal Desai (supra), the revenue cannot treat the assessee in different way, therefore, the addition on account of unexplained source under section 69C is deleted. In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. 11. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 02nd June, 2022 and result was placed on the notice board. - - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
