ITO, Ward 34(2), New Delhi. Vs. Rajeev Bhasin, 719, Kabool Nagar,Shahdara,Delhi.
February, 12th 2015
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCHES : F : NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM AND SHRI C.M. GARG, JM
Assessment Year : 2009-10
ITO, Vs. Rajeev Bhasin,
Ward 34(2), 719, Kabool Nagar,
New Delhi. Shahdara,
Assessee By : Shri Anuj Jain, CA
Department By : Shri Vikram Sahay, Sr. DR
PER R.S. SYAL, AM:
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
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).
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.
3.2. 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.
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.
[C.M. GARG] [R.S. SYAL]
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated, 10th February, 2015.
Copy forwarded to:
4. CIT (A)
5. DR, ITAT
AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.