TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 451X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s. BPTP Ltd. (seller). Subsequently, on 08.07.2015, the Assessee along with his two brothers sold the plot jointly on a consideration of Rs.65 lacs after paying brokerage of Rs.60,000/- and consequently received 1/3 of the said amount and accordingly claimed the benefit of cost u/s. 49 read with section 55 of the Act by working out cost of acquisition of 16,74,212/- and capital gain of Rs.4,72,455/-on the premise that the Assessee had acquired the right in plot/property on the death of his father on dated 18.11.2009. As per section 49 of the Act, where the capital asset became the property of the Assessee on any distribution of assets on the total or partial partition of a Hindu undivided family etc. etc. etc., the cost of acquisit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal, are that the Assessee s father had acquired the plot/property under consideration situated at J-2-25, B-Block, Park Land, Sector 84, Faridabad vide plot buyer s agreement dated 05.02.2007. Father of the Assessee expired on 18.11.2009. Thereafter memorandum of settlement was made amongst the Assessee and his two brothers and the asset of Assessee s father were divided amongst them equally on 31.03.2010. Thereafter, in order to give effect to the settlement conveyance deed was executed by M/s. BPTP Ltd. in favour of all the three brothers on 11.12.2013 and during the year under consideration, the Assessee along with other two brothers sold the plot of land for consideration of Rs.65 lacs after paying brokerage of Rs.60,000/- on 08.07.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ryana in the Memorandum of Settlement. The plot was purchased by the Appellant for Rs. 8,92,514/- on 11-12-2013 and sold for Rs. 21,66,666/- on 08-07-2015. Hence it is held that the Assessee is liable for short term capital gain of Rs. 12,74,512/- (21,66,666- 8,92,514/-). 5. The Assessee being aggrieved is in appeal before us, against the affirmation of adhoc addition and enhancement of the income by revising the adhoc addition, and in support of its case submitted that the order impugned is not only perverse and improper but also against the basic facts of the case in hand. 6. On the contrary, ld. DR supported the order passed by the ld. Commissioner and submitted that the order under challenge does not suffer from any perversity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and his brothers name, which is offshoot of the original allotment of plot in the name of Assessee s father, therefore this ground of rejection of claim and enhancement is unsustainable . 7.3 From the facts and documents available on record, it clearly appears that the plot/land under consideration was acquired by the Assessee s deceased father on 05.02.2007 and after his demise, the Assessee along with his 02 brothers by dividing the assets on dated 11.12.2013, got executed a conveyance deed with M/s. BPTP Ltd. (seller). 7.4 Subsequently, on 08.07.2015, the Assessee along with his two brothers sold the plot jointly on a consideration of Rs.65 lacs after paying brokerage of Rs.60,000/- and consequently received 1/3 of the said am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
