BHOPANLAL BHOLARAM SATIKAR,JALNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCE-JALNA, JALNA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 682/PUN/2019Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 September 2022AY 2010-114 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s enhancement of the capital gain, finding that the assessee had a one-half share in the property. No material was presented to contradict the CIT(A)'s finding.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file a return for AY 2010-11. The AO received information about the sale of property by the assessee and issued a notice u/s.148. The AO computed capital gains based on the assessee's presumed share.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) correctly enhanced the capital gain by reassessing the assessee's share in the property sold, given the assessee's non-disclosure of income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

आदेश / ORDER

PER R.S.SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-1, Aurangabad on 09-01-2019 in relation to the assessment year 2010-11. 2. The only issue raised in this appeal is against the confirmation/enhancement of addition amounting to Rs.37,32,300/-. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that the assessee did not file his return for the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer (AO) got information that the assessee had sold some property situated at Survey No.139 admeasuring 7 hectares 74R for a consideration of Rs.1,18,64,600/- on 25-09-2010. The land was within the municipal limits and hence, a capital asset. Since the assessee had not shown any income therefrom, a notice u/s.148 was issued. A return was filed pursuant to this notice on 03-01-2013. The AO observed that the assessee had not disclosed the transaction under consideration which was subject matter of notice u/s.148. He computed the capital gain by taking the assessee’s share at 19.38% and determined the full value of consideration pertaining to assessee’s share at Rs.23.00 lakh.

1.

After allowing the deduction for indexed cost of acquisition, he determined the amount of long term capital gain at Rs.21,54,716/-. The ld. CIT(A) made enhancement by observing that the assessee has one-half share in the property along with his brother and not 19.38% as taken by the AO. He, therefore, made enhancement by computing the amount of capital gain by taking the assessee’s share in the full value of consideration at one-half, which led to the enhancement and increase in the overall addition to Rs.37,32,300/-.

4.

I have heard the ld. DR and gone through the relevant material on record. The appeal was fixed for hearing for the first time on 19-06-2019 when it was adjourned at the request of the assessee. The appeal came to be adjourned on several occasions by the Tribunal and mostly the assessee evaded the attendance.

Considering the pendency of appeal for such a long period after its fixation, I am inclined to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee.

5.

It is seen that the assessee did not declare any income as long term capital gain on the property which was admittedly transferred during the year. The AO considered the assessee’s share at 19.38%. However, the ld CIT(A), after taking into consideration the entire gamut of material, came to hold that the assessee was having one-half share in the property. No material has been placed on record to controvert the finding of the ld. CIT(A). As the assessee had not declared the income from transfer of such property, the inescapable conclusion is that the addition as enhanced by the ld. CIT(A) is correct and does not warrant any interference.

6.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 01st September, 2022.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →