2026 (5) TMI 899

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....44B of the Income Tax. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not file his original return of income for A.Y. 2020-21. The AO had received an information that assessee had entered into purchase and sale transactions of immovable properties during the year. On the basis of this information the case of the assessee was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act after passing an order u/s 148A(d) of the Act on 22.03.2024. In the course of assessment, the AO had made addition of Rs. 5,07,40,136/- on account of long term capital gain (LTCG) derived on sale of properties. The LTCG was computed on the basis of stamp duty value of the properties and after allowing deduction for indexed cost of acquisition. Further, addition of Rs. 12,92,000/....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... vide registered cancellation deeds dated 15.07.2024. He further submitted that the assessee was buyer of the properties and not the seller. Therefore, the addition made by the AO u/s. 50C of Act was not correct as no LTCG was derived by the assessee. 6. Per contra, Shri Rameshwar P Meena, the Ld. SR-DR submitted that the assessee did not take any such plea before the AO that he was the buyer of the properties and not the seller. Rather a submission was made that the two properties were acquired by him in the Financial Year 2005-06 for a consideration of Rs. 7,50,000/-, in respect of which deduction for indexed cost of acquisition was allowed by the AO. The Ld. SR-DR submitted that though the assessee had taken a plea before the Ld. CIT(....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....duty value of that property was within the limit of 10% of actual sale consideration. 8. The information received by the AO required verification as the two properties could not have been purchased and sold on the same date for the same consideration. The AO had flip-flopped between making addition u/s 56(2)(x) or u/s 50C of the Act. The addition as made u/s 50C of the Act was without proper verification of the fact as to whether the transactions were for purchase or for sale of the properties. The contention of the assessee is that the sale deeds dated 19.09.2019 in respect of which addition was made by the AO, were cancelled vide cancellation deed dated 15.07.2024. However, a copy of the cancellation deed and the evidence for receipt o....