ANUPAM KUMAR,MEERUT UP vs. ITO WARD-1(1), MEERUT

This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Meerut, dated 28-12-2018, pertaining to the assessment year 2009-10. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

1. That the AO has taken sale consideration of Rs. 12,20,800/- which includes bank loan on the property which was repaid by the assessee out of sale consideration. Therefore, net consideration comes to Rs. 5,25,800/- the AO has not deduct cost of expenses (bank loan paid) therefore, AO has calculated capital gain by taking gross sale consideration instead of net consideration. Ld. CIT(A) has not considered this ground properly.

2 iTA 1494/Del/2019 Anupam Kumar Vs. ITO

2. That the AO has not allowed the benefit of construction shown by the assessee which was Rs. 6,20,000/- which is allowable to the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) has not considered this ground properly.

3. That the assessee has right to add, delete or modify any grounds of appeal during the proceedings.”

Notices of hearing sent have been returned by the postal authorities. The assessee has not provided any other address. Therefore, under these facts the appeal was taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee.

Apropos to these grounds, the learned Sr. DR has relied upon the decision of the authorities below.

“I have pursued the assessment record and submission made during appellate proceedings. The only issue in the appeal is addition of Rs.3,59,825/- made on account of long term capital gains on sale of property. The assessment has been completed u/s 147/143(3) of The Act. The appellant had bought the property along with four other co owners in F.Y 2004-05. The total sale consideration of the property of Rs 61,04,000/- is not under dispute and in the purchase deed the name of five co owners is there without indicating the % of holding. The case of one of the co owners

3 iTA 1494/Del/2019 Anupam Kumar Vs. ITO was completed by ITO ward -2(3) for the same property but factual aspects were different though the counsel for both the assessee was the same. In order to ascertain the factual position letter no 2015/2016- 17/CIT(A)/MRT/17-18/24 dated 25.04.2017 was issued to ITO ward - 1(1) Meerut to verify the correctness of the claim by making an inquiry in terms of sec 250(4) of The Act. The ITO Ward-l(l), Meerut vide letter no ITO/W-l/MRR/2016-17/148 dated 03.05.2017 has submitted his report stating the factual inaccuracies. The property has been sold for Rs 61,04,000/ and the purchase cost was Rs 23,13,300/- inclusive of cost of stamp papers in F.Y 2004-05. The A.O has correctly calculated the capital gains of the assessee by giving the benefit of indexation.

The appellant has disputed the correctness of the calculation of capital gains on two counts i.e the existence of bank loan on the property and appellant having 12.5% share in the property.

Both the claim of the appellant are devoid of merit for the reason that the claim of appellant regarding repayment of bank loan from the sale proceeds has no bearing on the calculation of capital gains as it is subsequent usage of money after sale of property. It is also a matter on records that the bank loan was taken much after purchase of property by offering it as a collateral security. In the case of other co owner he had given an affidavit stating the fact that all the co owners have 20% share in the property whereas the appellant has claimed to have 12.5% share in the property without bringing any document on record either at the assessment stage or during appellate proceedings to substantiate his claim. The claim of appellant is contrary to the facts of the case and is not backed by any evidence. The A.O has correctly calculated the capital gains of the appellant for Rs 3,59,825/-. The A.O is directly to verify from records that if the appellant has declared in the return capital gains of Rs 1,95,630/- than the balance sum of Rs 1,64,195/- is to be added to the income and if the income of Rs 1,95,630/- has been declared from some other sources than Rs 3,59,825/- is to be added to the income as capital gains”.

4 iTA 1494/Del/2019 Anupam Kumar Vs. ITO 5. The assessee has not filed any material to rebut the finding of the learned CIT(A). Therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere in the same. The grounds raised by the assessee are rejected.