Case Law Details
ITO Vs Late Smt. Seema Mukharjee (ITAT Jaipur)
It has been clearly mentioned that the capital gain income has been declared in the return of income of Smt. Gyanwati Dhakar, who has actually sold this property. The assessee has just signed as a confirming party.
Even otherwise, independent of the computation of income of Smt. Gyanwati Dhakar for the AY 2008-09, it is evident that the property was not sold by the appellant as the AO has failed to brought on record that the sale consideration of Rs. 45 Lac was received by the appellant or used directly or indirectly for its benefit and also in view of the order of Addl. Collector (Stamps), it is held that the AO was not justified in making addition of Rs.87,75,759/- to the income of the deceased Seema Mukherjee through her legal heirs as long term capital gain as the property was not sold by Smt. Seema Mukherjee during the year under consideration. If any addition was required to be made and that too u/s 50C of the Act, it should have been made in the hands of Smt. Gyanwati Dhakhar and not in the hands of the appellant. Hence, the addition of Rs. 87,75,759/-made by the AO is hereby deleted.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:-
This is an appeal filed by the revenue emanates from the order of the ld. CIT(A)-I, Jaipur dated 02/03/2017 for the A.Y. 2008-09. The only issue involved in the appeal is deleting the addition of long term capital gain amounting to Rs. 87,75,759/-.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
