Sri.Rajaram Kannan, Bangalore V. ITO,Ward-5(3)(2), Bangalore

ITA 1749/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9220 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 06-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRIA JT
• Assessee Lawyers: PRATHIBA R

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC - A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1749/BANG/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 SRI RAJARAM KANNAN, NO.98, 6 TH CROSS, CAMBRIDGE LAYOUT, ULSOOR, BENGALURU 560 008. PAN: AEVPK 0248M VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(3)(2), BENGALURU. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SMT. PRATHIBA R., ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.K. JHA, JT. CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 27.12.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.12.2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ADDITION CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) WITH REGARD TO CAPITA L GAINS ACCRUED ON SALE OF PROPERTY JOINTLY OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS M OTHER. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION THAT THOUGH PROPERTY WAS JOIN TLY OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS MOTHER, BUT THE CAPITAL GAIN ACCRU ED ON SALE OF THE PROPERTY WAS OFFERED TO TAX BY THE ASSESSEES MOTHE R. THEREFORE, CORRESPONDING CAPITAL GAIN SHOULD NOT BE TAXED IN T HE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ITA NO. 1749/BANG/2016 PAGE 2 OF 3 3. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS SUBMITTED THA T UNDISPUTEDLY THE PROPERTY WAS JOINTLY OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS MOTHER AND ONCE THE PROPERTY IS SOLD AND CAPITAL GAIN IS ACCRUED THEREO N, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN OFFERED TO TAX BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS MOTHER IN TH EIR RESPECTIVE HANDS IN EQUAL SHARE. BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT OFFER IT TO TAX, WHEREAS HIS MOTHER HAS OFFERED THE CAPITAL GAINS TO TAX ON THE SALE OF ENTIRE PROPERTY. THEREFORE, THE REVENUE HAS RIGHTLY ASSESSED HALF OF THE CAPITAL GAINS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AU THORITIES, WE FIND THAT UNDISPUTEDLY PROPERTY WAS JOINTLY OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS MOTHER AND CAPITAL GAINS TAX ACCRUED ON THE SALE OF THIS PROPERTY WAS OFFERED TO TAX BY THE ASSESSEES MOTHER, BUT ASSESS EE DID NOT OFFER IT TO TAX; WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE OFFERED HALF OF THE CAPITAL GAINS TO TAX. IT IS SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT INCOME HAS TO BE PROPERLY ASSESSED IN THE RIGHT HANDS. IF THE ASSESSEE JOINTLY OWNED THE PRO PERTY AND THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD, CAPITAL GAIN OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN OFFERED B Y BOTH THE CO-OWNERS ON ITS SALE. THEREFORE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT CAPITAL GAIN CHARGED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IS CORRECT, BUT SINCE HIS MOTHER HA S ALREADY OFFERED THE ENTIRE CAPITAL GAIN TO TAX ON THE SALE OF PROPERTY, THE CORRESPONDING BENEFIT SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE MOTHER. ACCORDINGLY, I DIRE CT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEES MOTHER TO REFUND THE EXCE SS CAPITAL GAINS TAX CHARGED IN THE HANDS OF THE MOTHER, AS THE CORRESPO NDING CAPITAL GAIN HAS ITA NO. 1749/BANG/2016 PAGE 3 OF 3 BEEN ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORD INGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISPOSED OF. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 28 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016. SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV ) JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 28 TH DECEMBER, 2016. /D S/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE.