Rajeev Bhasin, New Delhi vs Department Of Income Tax

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by

the CIT(A) on 5.10.2012 in relation to the assessment year 2009-10.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer

(AO) received AIR information regarding sale of some property by the ITA No.199/Del/2013

assessee on 21.11.2008 for a consideration of Rs.32.30 lac. The AO

called upon the assessee to explain as to how the sale consideration was

taken at Rs.10 lac, whereas the circle rate adopted by the Stamp Value

Authority stood at Rs.32.30 lac. Invoking the provisions of section 50C

of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), the AO

adopted circle rate of land at Rs.32.30 lac and made the addition for this

sum by holding that the contentions put forth by the assessee were of no

relevance. The assessee made submissions before the ld. CIT(A) on

several issues by filing certain details relevant for the purpose. The ld.

CIT(A) sent such details to the AO for remand report. On perusal of the

material on record and also the remand report, the ld. CIT(A) held that

the assessee had one half share in the property; stamp value of the

property was Rs.30.66 lac; and the cost of the property was required to

be considered in the calculation of capital gains, which stood at

Rs.8,20,000/- plus Rs.82,000/- towards stamp duty. The Revenue is

aggrieved against the above conclusions drawn by the ld. CIT(A).

2 ITA No.199/Del/2013

3.1. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant

material on record. It can be seen from the assessee's letter dated

28.11.2011 filed before the AO during the course of remand

proceedings, categorically mentioning that the assessee's share in the

property was only to the extent of 50% and the remaining 50% belonged

to Shri Shanti Lal Kapur. The ld. CIT(A) perused a copy of the

Purchase deed as well as Sale deed giving names of the assessee along

with Shri Shanti Lal Kapur in such documents as joint owners. The

reason for the deposit of the amount in the bank account was that such

bank account was in the joint names of the assessee and Shri Shanti Lal

Kapur. A copy of the Purchase deed indicating the assessee's name

along with Shri S.L. Kapur, as buyers, was produced before us during

the course of arguments. In view of this evidence, which has not been

controverted by the ld. DR, it is clear that the assessee only had ½ share

in the property and the remaining ½ belonged to Shri Shanti Lal Kapur.

3 ITA No.199/Del/2013

3.2. The ld. AR has brought to our notice that the Revenue has issued

notice u/s 148 to Shri S.L. Kapur as well in respect of income from the

transfer of the remaining ½ share in the property.

3.3. In view of the foregoing discussion, we approve the view point

taken by the ld. CIT(A) in considering the assessee's share in the

property at one half.

4. The second finding of the ld. CIT(A) which has been challenged is

against the adoption of stamp value at Rs.30.66 lac. As against the AO

taking Rs.32.36 lac as the stamp value of the property, the ld. CIT(A)

restricted this value to Rs.30.66 lac on the basis of the Sale deed

indicating the stamp value at this figure. We have also perused a copy

of the sale deed which indicates stamp value at the figure taken by the

ld. CIT(A). Thus, there remains no dispute that the correct stamp value

of the property is Rs.30.66 lac, as against Rs.32.30 lac, which was

inadvertently taken by the AO. The view taken by the ld. CIT(A) on this

score is upheld.

4 ITA No.199/Del/2013

5. The last issue is against the adoption of cost of property at Rs.8.20

lac plus stamp duty of Rs.82,000/-. From the AO's computation of total

income, it can be seen that he took stamp value at Rs.32.30 lac and

considered the same amount as 'Long-term capital gain' without

allowing any deduction towards the cost of acquisition of the property.

The ld. CIT(A), on perusal of the purchase deed, considered the

purchase price of the property at Rs.8.20 lac plus stamp duty of

Rs.82,000/-. There is hardly any need to emphasize that in the

computation of capital gains, section 48 requires a deduction, inter alia,

for cost of acquisition of the property. No material has been placed on

record by the ld. DR to show that the value as taken by the ld. CIT(A) is

incorrect. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order on this score.

6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

The order pronounced in the open court on 10.02.2015.

Sd/- Sd/-

[C.M. GARG] [R.S. SYAL] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated, 10th February, 2015. 5 ITA No.199/Del/2013

dk Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT

AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.

6