ITA No.6816/Mum/2025; Avani Azad Parikh, Mumbai

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Avani Azad Parikh, was a 50% shareholder in a residential flat at Skylark Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., along with her son, Mr. Sujan Azad Parikh. The rights in the property were transferred by issuing share certificates to each of them. The assessee sold her 50% share in the flat to Ms. Enakshi Sujan Parikh in 2007 and offered the resulting long-term capital gain to tax in A.Y 2008-09. Later, Mr. Sujan Azad Parikh and Ms. Enakshi Sujan Parikh sold the flat in July 2014 for Rs. 15,25,00,000/-. The revenue reopened the assessment and added Rs. 7,25,08,820/- as long-term capital gain on a 'Protective Basis', treating the assessee as still the owner of 50% share in the flat. However, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted this addition to avoid double taxation, as the income had already been assessed in the hands of Mr. Sujan A. Parikh.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made of Rs. 7,25,08,820/- u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, without appreciating that the assessee failed to substantiate her claim with documentary evidences.
• 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not treating the appellant as the owner of 50% right in the residential flat with SkyLark Co-op Hsg. Society Ltd. despite the assessee failing to submit documentary evidences in support of her claim.
• 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is right in not treating that the sales consideration of Rs. 7,25,08,820/- accrues to the assessee.
• 4. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating long-term capital gains of Rs. 7,25,08,820/- on the sale of flat at Skylark Cooperative Society not pertaining to the assessee.
• 5. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred not appreciating that the burden of proof was on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions.
• 6. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the decisions in Sumati Dayal v. CIT 214 ITR-80 and CIT v. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR-540 (S.C.) and coming to a conclusion only on the basis of the arguments advanced by the assessee.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Dipa Prakashkumar Velani vs. Assessment Unit through Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

  Ahmedabad bench

• Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Panipat. Vs. Santosh Ahlawat

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2016-17Partly Allowed

• Sh. Manjula Khanna Vs. Income Tax Officer

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2014-15Allowed

• Income Tax Officer, Mumbai Vs. Sunita Chaudhary

  Mumbai benchAY 2014-15Dismissed

• Vidhi Pragnesh Modi vs. ITO

  Ahmedabad bench

• Material Research Instruments Vs. ACIT-Circle 16(2), Mumbai

  Mumbai Bench benchAY 2006-07Partly Allowed