TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 35
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned CIT(A) has grossly erred in dismissing Ground 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 understandi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the learned 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 eithe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... property being a plot of Land being Bungalow No.5 and admeasuring 345.60 Sq. Mtrs. (413.33 sq. yards), on 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 prio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ANUAL UPADHYAY AGE 40 YEARS on behalf of Minor NAMAN DHARMENDRA JOSHI, aged 12 years and (3) PUJA DHARMENDRA JOSHI aged, 18 YEARS, all residing 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 fut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sh copy of I.T. Return for A.Y. 2010-11 along with Computation Statement of Income and working of Capital Gain along with copies of Bank Statement. However, she has not furnished 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, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ale consideration due to their agreement of divorce and decree of divorce which would not affect the tax liability in the hands of the appellant over the entire property as per the relevant provisions 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 ....