AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 22
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that for relinquishment of right there is no need of any ownership of the land but possession is required which is holding by the appellant, which is handed over by him to land owner. 4. The Learned CIT (A) has not appreciated the facts that the land owners (Payer) allowed deduction against the capital gain by them as expenses for the taking the possession. The aforesaid grounds are without prejudice to each other and the appellant craves leave to add/delete/alter and/or amend any of grounds as aforesaid as and when necessary. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 31.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 2,24,860/- for assessment year 2014-15. Subsequently, department was in possession of information that the assessee along with four other persons had entered into a "possession agreement" ("Kabja Karar") on 21.03.2013 for grant of possession of two bigha land at Khoraj Gam, Distt. Gandhinagar for a consideration of Rs. 5 crores. Assessee's share in this amount was Rs. 80 lakhs (being 1/5th share). However, the assessing officer observed that the assessee had not disclosed/declared any income on account of this transaction in the return ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appellant had received Rs. 53.00.000/- out of Rs. 80,00,000/- during the year under consideration. Appellant has not denied that he had received the amount of Rs 53,00,000/-and there is no dispute that the appellant had received the amount on relinquishment of his right over the land. 5.3.2 In order to tax the said amount under the head 'capital gains the appellant need to establish the ownership of the property i.e. 2 bigha land. However, neither during assessment proceedings nor present proceedings the appellant has failed to prove the ownership on the land on the date of kabja karar. The assessee has also failed to furnish the copy of the sale deed after the kabja karar. Therefore, the receipt of Rs. 53,00,000/- is not taxed under the head capital gains'. Hence, the appellant is not entitled to claim any exemption / deduction under section 54F of the Act 5.3.3 Further, though the assessee has received huge amount of Rs. 53,00,000/- on signing kabija karar, failed to offer the income for taxation purpose. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the Assessing officer has rightly brought the receipt of Rs. 53,00,000/- under sec 684 of the IT Act. 5.3.4 As per s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e contention of the assessee that the Assessing Officer should have determined the peak credit is not supported by any evidence However, we also find that on February 10, 2008 an amount of Rs 1,75,000 has been transferred by cheque No. 868596 and another amount of Rs 1,750 vide cheque No 263278 We also find that on 29th March 2006 amount of Rs 18,00,000/- has been transferred from account No. C-738. The Assessing Officer had also noted that an amount of Rs. 1,00,000 was also withdrawn from cash The source of the balance amount has not been explained. Therefore the addition made by the Assessing Officer except the above amount of Rs 18,76,750 (Rs 1,75,000 plus Rs. 1,750 plus Rs. 18,00,000) has to be upheld. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the leamed Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) confirming the addition to this extent" Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai in MH Raney 34 taxmann.com 5 (ITAT Mumbai) dealing with cash deposits held as under. "The assessee's explanation is vague and unsubstantiated, rather, being limited to the working of the quantum of the unexplained funds involved, contending recycling, so as to impact the addition to income exigible on ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ook i.e. order of Ld. CIT(A) in the case of Shri Mahendrabhai K Patel in which the said Shri Mahendrabhai K. Patel had given an Affidavit that the assessee was having "possession rights" over the said land and the same was used for tilling purposes till the time of entering of the "possession agreement" in favour of Shri Mahendrabhai K Patel. Accordingly, the counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee was having "possession rights" over such piece of land which constituted a "capital asset" and the transfer of such capital asset was liable to be taxed as capital gains. Further, the counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had entered into an agreement in the year 2014, vide a family arrangement by way of which the assessee along with other four persons were given "right of possession/right of tilling" over such land. Therefore, since the instant land constituted a capital asset the transfer thereof was liable to be taxed as capital gains u/s. 45 of the Act and the assessee was also entitled to cost of acquisition of such asset and also was eligible for grant of deduction u/s. 54 of the Act. 7. In response, the Ld. D.R. placed reliance on the observations made....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee was having "possession rights" over such property. This is especially in the light of the fact that the possession agreement dated 2004 was not brought to the notice of the assessing officer/Ld. CIT(A) for their consideration. 9. Further, while computing the "cost of acquisition" of such "possession rights" in the return of income filed by the assessee in response to notice issued by Ld. A.O. u/s. 148 of the Act, the assessee has taken cost of acquisition of such "right of possession" by taking the value of land as per value computed by registered Valuer Report as on 01.04.1981 of Rs. 43,73,026/-. However, it is not clear that why the assessee has taken the cost of acquisition of "right of possession" on the basis of registered value of such land/property as per report of registered valuer as on 01.04.1981 and thereafter indexing the same to compute the cost of acquisition at Rs. 43,73,026/- as on the date of transfer of such capital asset, when as per the assessee's own submission, the assessee was not having ownership rights in the said property. Therefore, it is not clear as to why the assessee has computed the cost of acquisition with reference to the "ownership rights....