2018 (7) TMI 585

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi for Rs. 70,10,000/- and purchased a residential house at Dwarka for Rs. 73,83,100/- which included an amount of Rs. 4,14,000/- as stamp duty. The assessee claimed the entire amount of LTCG as exempt u/s 54 of IT act. The AO found that the sale consideration of the property at Mohan Garden included an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards sale of furniture available in the house at the time of sale of property. The assessee has executed an agreement for sale of furniture. To ascertain the genuineness of the sale consideration of furniture, the AO conducted necessary enquiries and summons were issued to Shri Rajkumar Maini and Smt. Pooja Maini with whom agreement of sale of furniture has boon executed. Summo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d. CIT(A) noted that there is no dispute on the fact that the assessee has received Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of sale of furniture as also that the value of furniture was inflated and shown excessively to evade stamp duty as also to evade proper payment of long term capital gain. Primafacie the real value of the sale of furniture was Rs. 3 lakhs as disclosed by the concerned persons related to the transaction of sale of furniture. The Ld. CIT(A), however, noted that long term capital gain has already been determined and benefit under section 54 have already been given to the assessee. Therefore, no further benefit can be given. It is also noted that value of the house hold articles was Rs. 3 lakhs only, therefore Rs. 7 lakhs shall have to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uce the stamp duty involved in the transaction to evade stamp duty on the sale deed. These facts have not been disputed by the Learned Counsel for the Assessee during the course of assessment proceedings through any evidence or material on record. These facts clearly prove the case of the A.O. that the genuineness of the claim of the assessee for receipt of Rs. 10 lakhs as sale consideration on furniture has not been proved. The assessee did not dispute the statement of these persons with whom the agreement to sale was executed. It may also be noted here that the purchasers Shri Rajkumar Maini and Smt. Pooja Maini have not given any sale consideration to the assessee but Shri Rakesh Ahuja has given the payment on their behalf. This itself a....