The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 0876 (Bang-Trib)

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 45

Where assessee had originally declared capital loss of Rs. 27.30 lakhs, due to some computational error, however, in the revised return of income, assessee-HUF herein had declared capital gains as nil, after claiming deduction under section 54B, since assessee had not brought any new material on record to show that land actually belonged to individual status, appeal of assessee was dismissed.

Capital gains - Assessment of capital gains in the hands of assessee-HUF - Claim of assessee was that capital gains arose in individual capacity of assessee -

Assessee had declared loss arose on sale of agricultural land. Agricultural land sold by assessee was located within Municipal limits. However, Mr. Rajesh had agreed before ADIT(Inv.) that sale consideration was 34.60 lakhs, though the conveyance deed was executed for Rs. 13.05 lakhs. Accordingly, in the return of income filed by assessee in pursuance of notice issued under section 148, assessee also declared sale consideration at Rs. 34.60 lakhs and accordingly computed capital loss. Subsequently, assessee-HUF filed revised return of income declaring capital gain as 'nil', after claiming deduction under section 54B. Assessee was aggrieved by decision of AO in making the assessment of capital gains in the hands of assessee HUF, while claim of assessee was that capital gains had arisen in the individual capacity of assessee Held: Assessee had originally declared capital loss of Rs. 27.30 lakhs, due to some computational error. However, in revised return of income, assessee-HUF herein had declared capital gains as nil, after claiming deduction under section 54B. It can be noticed that assessee-HUF, in two occasions, i.e., in the original return and in revised return of income, has consciously declared the capital in its hands. Assessee had not brought any new material on record to show that land actually belonged to individual status. The onus to prove the said claim would lie on assessee and assessee had failed to discharge its onus by bringing cogent material in support his claim.

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : Against the assessee

A.Y. : 2002-03



IN THE ITAT, BANGALORE BENCH

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT