9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 583X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further enhanced the above long term capital gain by holding that the appellant has one half share in the property CS No. 2216 as against one-third offered by the appellant and 11.48% assessed by the Assessing Officer and thereby the learned commissioner (appeals) has enhanced the assessment completed under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act. 2. The leaned commissioner of income tax (appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the additions of Rs. 11,641/- on account of interest income from banks as per the arbitrary profit & loss A/c prepared by the Assessing Officer 3. The learned commissioner of income tax (appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the additions of Rs. 3518/- on account of the credit entries in the bank accounts treating the same as unexplained cash deposit in the bank account. 4. The learned commissioner of income tax (appeals) officer has erred in law on facts in confirming the additions of Rs. 2,638/- on account of the alleged short term capital gain on mutual funds. 5. The appellant craves leave to add to alter, delete or modify any of the above grounds of appeals either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal." Grounds Numbe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng brokerage expenses of Rs. 7 lakhs were apportioned between the two brothers and the proportion of Rs. 1,83,30,500/- and Rs. 1,10,72,500/- between the assessee and his brother and long-term capital gains on the hand the assessee and his brother were re-computed accordingly. The relevant extracts of the order of Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced below for reference: "7.2 The two properties were purchased in 1961 by Shri Shikharchand Zaveri in the name of his two minor sons, Dilip and Harish and the purchase documents were signed by Shri Shikharchand Zaveri as parent of minors. Thus the actual and absolute owners of the property as per the document were Shri Dilip Zaveri and Shri Harish Zaveri. After the death of Shri Shikharchand Zaveri as per his will also, the ownership was vested with Shri Dilip Zaveri and Shri Harish Zaveri and there was no mention of any share or benefit of ownership in share of any kind given to Dr. Shaila Atul Patel. All the facts mentioned above suggest and go to prove that Dr. Shaila Atul Patel was never an actual or absolute owner of the properties or had any rights therein. 7.3 Dr. Shaila Patel never held the capital asset since she did not have any right ov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... profits & gains. There is o requirement of section 45 that consideration of transfer should necessarily flow from the buyer (transferee) to the seller (transferor). Mere recognition of consideration or right to receive the consideration is enough. Under the circumstances, the sale consideration of the two properties (irrespective of the fact that Rs.98,01,000/- only was remitted by the purchaser and received by the appellant and Rs.98,01,000/- remitted to Dr. Shaila Patel and Rs.7,00,000/- paid to Shri Chandubhai Patel, the broker in the deal) the entire amount (the consideration received by cheque and the consideration admitted to have been received in cash) will go towards computation of capital gain in the hands of the owner of the properties i.e. Dr. Dilip S. Zaveri and Dr. Harish S. Zaveri. 7.6 Thus, in view of the position of law and facts of the case, both the appellant (and his Ld. AR) and the AO are found not correct in computation of LTCG on sale of two properties. As per the Income Tax provisions, the only treatment that is tenable in the case is that the sale consideration of the property CS No.2224 has to be considered entirely in the hands of Dr. Dilip S. Zaveri alo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... count and P & L Account were prepared by the AO and unexplained credits/deposits/receipts of the appellant were worked out for the purpose of computation of total income in the case. 9.1 The unexplained credits/deposits/receipts of the appellant worked out for the AY 2010-11 is Rs.3,518/-, interest income received is Rs,ll,641/-, dividend on mutual fund is Rs.99,205/- and STCG on Mutual Fund is Rs.2,638/- to be taxed at special rate) and they have been treated appropriately towards computation of total income of the appellant. 10. On the grounds of appeal related these additions - on account of interest income from banks, on account credit entries in the bank accounts and on account of Short Term Capital Gain (STCG) on mutual funds - common for other assessment years, the appellant submits that the bank entries appearing in the bank statements are only inter-bank transfers and under no circumstances can be treated as appellant's unexplained income. In this regard, bank statements have been furnished to show that the initial money is remittance from appellant's USA account made for meeting various expenses during his visit to India and for treatment of his mother Smt. Ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
