TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 35
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No. 1 of the appellant's appeal before him challenging the very validity of the assessment order impugned before him. 2. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 19,56,240 made by the learned Assessing Officer to the long term capital gains on sale of immovable property shown in the appellant's return, on the ground that part of the sale consideration viz., Rs. 21,00,000, had not been accounted for by the appellant. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated, inter alia, that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the mutual understanding between the appellant and his divorced wife and children had ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIT(A) has grossly erred in dismissing Ground No. 4 of the appellant's appeal before him challenging levy of interest u/s. 234 (that being the provision referred to in the assessment order). He ought to have appreciated that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of appellant's case, the ratio of the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Bharat Machinery and Hardware Mart's case (136 ITR 875) and of the decision of the ITAT, Delhi Bench in Haryana Warehousing Corporation v. DCIT [252 ITR (AT.) 34] was attracted and the levy deserved to be cancelled. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend and/or alter the ground or grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. 2. The facts of the case are that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n which he had constructed a house admieasuring 113.30 sq. Mtrs (135.50 sq. yards). He had acquired the said property from his own earnings and savings. Late Rajnikant Shantilal Joshi died on 15' April 1999. Said Rajnikant Shantilal Joshi had made a registered Will died 25th September 1998 and by the said will he had bequeathed the said property to one Dharmendra Rajnikant Joshi, the Vendor, being the only son of late Rajnikant Shantilal Joshi. (b) Name of vendor and his mother Smt. Taraben was recorded as Nominees in the records of the said Society. However, Late Smt. Taraben Rajnikant Joshi died on 22nd December, 1998 prior to the death of Late Shri Rajnikant Shantilal Joshi. (c) The said Society therefore by Resolution No. 1 date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing at C/o. Manila! B. Upadhyay, Mahiyal Ta. Talod, Dist. Mehsana, at present residing at 163, Patel Vas, Opp: Swaminarayan Mandir, Kocharab, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad as CONFIRMING PARTIES of the Third Part." Hence, in view of above, the whole receipt of sale consideration is assessable only in the hands of the assessee. (ii) The assessee has stated in the said Submission dtd. 03.01.2013 that it was mutually decided between the assessee and her former wife that whole family will have rights over the property and whenever the said capital asset will be sold, the rights of the wife and future sons will be compensated accordingly. However, it is seen that the assessee has not furnished any evidences of such mutual understanding and without....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hed any details as called for. Keeping in mind the law of natural justice and being fair in the assessment proceedings, once again, a letter dtd. 08.03.2013 was issued to Ms. Deepika Manilal Upadhyay at the permanent address given in the Deed of Conveyance, i.e. C/o. Hiraben Manilal Upadhyay, At & Post Village Mahiyal, Tal. Talod, Dist. Sabarkantha which was duly served upon her by post. However, till date, she has not complied the said notice issued u/s. 133(6) of the I. T. Act. Hence, on account of non-compliance from Ms. Deepika Manilal Upadhyay, the accessibility of Rs. 21,00,000/- remains to be unverified which was claimed by the assessee in the hands of her former wife and children as stated in his Submission dtd. 03.01.2013. Ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns of the Income tax Act. Simply by mentioning that the three former family members would be liable for the long term capital gain tax on their share would not be legal and the same is unjustified. Even the appellant has not submitted any details and evidences to show that the long term capital gain has been paid by each of the three persons on the sale consideration of Rs. 21 lakhs having received by former family members. Therefore, considering the total sale consideration of Rs. 99 lakhs in the hands of the appellant to work out the long term capital gain is found correct and justified and accordingly the addition made by the A.O. on the long term capital gain is confirmed. 6. We have gone through the relevant record and the impugned or....