TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 921
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gether and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. In both the appeals one common issue has been raised, i.e. against the computation of Long Term Capital Gain in the hands of the assessee and second is against the addition made on account of cash deposits in the bank accounts. 4. Before proceeding further, it may be pointed out that the appeal in the case of Anil Swarup in ITA No.5928/Del/2016 has been filed after delay of two days which being minor is condoned and we proceed to decide the appeals. ITA No.2919/Del/2015 5. Briefly in the facts of the case, the assessee individual had furnished the return of income declaring income from salary, income from property and other sources and also incom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is brother's name in revenue record, though the property belongs to three persons. The Assessing Officer on verification of the sale deed noted that the property was sold by two owners i.e. Shri Alok Swarup and Shri Anil Swarup S/o Late Vinod Kunwar Singh and concluded that the two were co-owners and M/s. V.K. Singh (HUF) being 1/3rd co-owner was not accepted. Further, the Assessing Officer also referred valuation of the property to Valuation Officer in light of provisions of section 50C of the Act; but since valuation report was not received till the date of passing of the assessment order and the matter was getting time barred, the Assessing Officer computed the capital gains by taking the circle rate of the sale consideration. As the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....value by the assessee and the assessed value by the DVO is about 4.92%. He stressed that where the difference is assessed less than 10% then the sale consideration as declared by the assessee may be adopted. He placed reliance on series of the decisions in this regard. He further pointed out that the cost of improvement has been disallowed in the hands of the assessee and the claim was only with regard to 1/3rd of Rs. 5,96,000/-. He pointed out that the said cost of improvements has been allowed in the hands of M/s V.K. Singh (HUF). The next aspect which was pointed out by the Ld. AR for the assessee was that the said asset was owned by three co-owners i.e. Shri Alok Swarup, Shri Anil Swarup and M/s V.K. Singh (HUF). First of all, he pointe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ale consideration. In the case of the assessee, the sale value declared in the sale deed was at Rs. 38,92,000/-, whereas as per the Registered sale deed, the value was Rs. 1.16 Crores. The Assessing Officer made reference to the DVO who in-turn has valued both the pieces of land at Rs. 40,86,000/-. The CIT(A) has adopted the said value assessed by the DVO and had directed the AO to re-compute the income in his hands. Where the difference between the value declared by the assessee and value assessed by the DVO is 4.74% i.e. marginal difference which is less than 10% of difference between value declared and value estimated. Since it is case of estimation of value by the DVO, the Courts have held that the marginal difference needs to be ignore....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deed have been executed by two co-owners and the sale consideration has been bifurcated amongst three persons. In these facts and circumstances, we find no merit in the orders of the authorities below and direct the Assessing Officer to adopt 1/3rd net capital gains in the hands of the assessee and balance 1/3rd share in the hands of the Shri Anil Swarup. 13. Now coming to the last linked issue i.e. cost of improvement claimed at Rs. 5,69,000/-(100%). The said expenditure was disallowed as no evidence was filed by the assessee. We are of the view that principle of justice would meet in case Rs. 1,00,000/- each is allowed as cost of improvement. Accordingly, we hold so. Thus, the ground of appeal nos. 3 and 4 are allowed. 14. Now coming to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....posits in State Bank of India, the Ld. AR for the assessee pointed that the cash was withdrawn from the account of ASJ Developers, where he was partner and part of it was deposited in the account. From the perusal of the assessment order, we find that the assessee had failed to produce the necessary evidence with regard to the cash deposits and also the source of cash deposits before Assessing Officer. In the interest of justice, we are of the view that the onus is upon the assessee to strictly explain each and every deposits in two bank accounts i.e. HDFC bank and State Bank of India, as both these accounts were not declared in the return of income. Following the principal of natural justice, we are of the view that the matter may be set-a....