2022 (3) TMI 381

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ected against the order dated 10-02-2020 passed by the CIT(A)-2, Pune, in relation to the assessment year 2013-14. 2. The only issue raised in this appeal is against the double taxation of Rs. 10 lakhs. 3. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the assessee received a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs on signing as a consenting party in a sale transaction of land and offered long term capital gain of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....m as consenting parties. It was further submitted that Mrs. Anuradha Ashok Satbhai had been treated as sole owner of the land and thus, no addition at all was called for in the hands of assessee. The ld. CIT(A) in para 5.3.5 of impugned order discussed the fact that while deciding the appeal of Mrs. Anuradha Ashok Satbhai, he has held that she was the sole owner of the land and the entire capital ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... entirety in the hands of appellant only". Thus, it is overt that the assessee‟s mother was subjected to tax as a sole owner of the property and the assessee, even though received Rs. 10 lakh as a consenting party, cannot be charged to tax in respect of this transaction either as "Long term capital gain‟ offered wrongly by it or as "Income from other sources‟ assessed by the AO. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ds of Mrs. Anuradha Ashok Satbhai, his mother, as a sole owner, I hold that the amount of long term capital gain of Rs. 5.39 lakhs wrongly offered by the assessee is also not chargeable to tax in the same manner in which the addition of Rs. 4.61 lakhs was wrongly made by the AO. It is trite that no income can be taxed merely because the assessee wrongly offered it in his return. I am reminded of t....