2026 (1) TMI 977

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....'). 2. There was a delay of 139 days in filing of this appeal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reason for delay. It is submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was received on email ID. However, the assessee was not regular in checking his email ID. As a result, he could not access the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in time. It was only when the penalty proceeding was initiated that the assessee came to know about the appellate order. Thereafter, he consulted his Counsel and the present appeal was filed and in the process there was a delay of 139 days. Considering the explanation of the assessee, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not file his return of inc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... AO by treating the Long Term Capital Gain against sale of land in the assessment for A.Y.2012-13 when the transaction of sale of land in question pertains to A.Y.2011-12 and the same is already considered in the hands of Shri Balvantbhai Ahir, father of the appellant by jurisdictional AO, in the assessment year 2011-12 as the property was owned by Shri Balvantbhai Ahir and his brothers and the Satakath (Agreement to Sale) was executed on 18.02.2011 and the possession was also given on the said date. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 21,47,392/- made in the hands of appellant may kindly be deleted. 2. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Id. CIT(Appeals) erred in not accepti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... on the sale of this property and the details in respect of cost of acquisition of property was never brought on record. He, therefore, supported the order of the lower authorities. 8. We have considered the rival submissions. The fact that the assessee was 1/9th co-owner of the property sold vide sale deed dated 24.10.2011 for a consideration of Rs. 1,38,27,499/-, is not under dispute. The fact that stamp duty of Rs. 9,47,000/- on jantri value of this property at Rs. 1,93,26,531/- was paid, is also not under dispute. The AO had adopted 1/9th shares of the jantri value being Rs. 21,47,392/- as long term capital gain derived by the assessee in this transaction. The contention of the assessee is that prior to sale deed, an agreement was ex....