Case Law Details
Vasamsetty Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)
Conclusion: Assessees could not claim cost of improvement and indexation cost as assessee had to furnish some evidence and in the absence of any evidence or information, the information contained in the registered sale deed was required to be accepted.
Held: Assessee was an individual and derived income from business, long term capital gain and from other sources. Assessee had filed his return of income for the AY 2016-17 on 24.03.2018 declaring income of Rs. 8,26,153/-. A search and seizure operation u/s.132 was conducted on the assessee as part of the searches conducted on M/s. Skill Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Group and others on 22.10.2019. Accordingly, notice u/s. 153C was issued to the assessee. In response to the notice, assessee had not filed any return of income. However, assessee filed return of income on 24.03.2018 for the A.Y. 2016-17. Subsequently, notices u/s. 142(1) was issued to assessee by AO. Thereafter, AO had completed the assessment u/s. 153C inter alia by making addition of Rs.1,30,01,435/- on account of Long Term Capital Gains. Revenue, submitted that on the basis of the registered sale deed, assessee had claimed long term capital gain and indexation cost whereas in the agreement of sale dated 21.11.2015 the property had been shown as vacant plot of land. Hence considering the above assessee had wrongly claimed long term capital gain as well as indexation cost. Assessee filed appeal before CIT(A), who granted partial relief to assessee. It was held that to claim the cost of improvement and indexation cost, assessee had to furnish some evidence and in the absence of any evidence or information, then the information contained in the registered sale deed was required to be accepted. Therefore, the information contained in the registered sale deed related to the assessee and AO had rightly invoked the jurisdiction under section 153C.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT HYDERABAD
The captioned appeals are filed by the assessee, feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 12, Hyderabad dt.28.09.2022 for A.Y. 2016-17.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
