Appeal admitted after 78-day delay for medical reasons, assessee taxed for 50% property share under Income Tax Act.

The appeal was admitted despite a delay of 78 days due to medical reasons. The assessee was treated as a co-owner for 50% share of a property under section 69B of the Income Tax Act and taxed accordingly. Despite the claim of a 10% share, the tribunal upheld the 50% share assessment based on evidence. The tribunal determined that only a portion of the total amount paid for the property needed to be taxed, specifically 50% of the consideration paid during the relevant year. The case was remitted to the Assessing Officer for further verification and decision.

---

---

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal, Addition u/s 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Shareholding percentage determination, Taxation of share u/s 69B of the Act.

Delay in filing appeal:
The appeal was filed with a delay of 78 days, citing medical reasons. The assessee requested condonation of the delay, which was granted after hearing both parties. The appeal was admitted despite the delay.

Addition u/s 69B of the Income Tax Act:
The Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessee purchased property along with another individual, but failed to provide details during assessment. As a result, the AO treated the assessee as a co-owner for 50% share of the property and taxed it as unexplained income u/s 69B. The CIT(A) upheld this decision.

Shareholding percentage determination:
The assessee contended that they only had a 10% share in the property, presenting an unregistered agreement as evidence. However, since the agreement was dated after the property registration and lacked details in the sale deed, the claim was rejected. The tribunal upheld the 50% share assessment.

Taxation of share u/s 69B of the Act:
The tribunal considered the payments made for acquiring the property and determined that only a portion of the total amount paid, along with stamp duty, needed to be taxed in the relevant assessment year. It was decided that 50% of the consideration paid during the year should be brought to tax, amounting to a specific sum. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the case was remitted to the AO for further verification and decision.

In conclusion, the delay in filing the appeal was condoned, the addition u/s 69B was upheld, the shareholding percentage was determined to be 50%, and the taxation of the share u/s 69B was calculated based on the payments made for acquiring the property. The tribunal directed the AO to verify actual payments and make necessary additions accordingly.

---