9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1365 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) - receipt of property through general power of attorney without consideration - Transfer of rights in respect of a plot - as submitted assessee is merely a Power of Attorney holder and not the owner of the said plot - AO was of the view that the value of the said plot equal to stamp duty value @ ₹ 1 lac per marla was chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee as income from other sources - HELD THAT - Power of Attorney does not give ownership rights to the assessee and that the document referred to and relied upon to infer transfer of the plot was nothing but the Power of Attorney executed by the lady owner in assessee s favour. Thus a general Power of Attorney was given to the assessee by Smt. Harsharan Kaur to maintain the property, it cannot be said that the assessee received the property and was liable to pay the tax on the stamp duty value of the said property. See SURAJ LAMP INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA ANOTHER 2011 (10) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. VERSUS JANAK RAJ CHAUHAN. 2005 (8) TMI 284 - ITAT AMRITSAR - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of assessment order framed under sections 143(3)/147 without complying with mandatory conditions under section 147. 2. Justification of addition of ?46,50,000/- made by AO considering the assessee as the owner of the property. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of Assessment Order under Sections 143(3)/147: The assessee challenged the legality of the assessment order framed under sections 143(3)/147, contending that the mandatory conditions under section 147 were not complied with. The AO initiated proceedings under section 147 based on information obtained during the assessment proceedings of another individual, where it was noted that the assessee, as a Power of Attorney (PoA) holder, transferred full rights of a plot without monetary consideration. The AO treated the stamp duty value of the said plot as taxable income under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee argued that being a PoA holder did not confer ownership rights, and thus, the assessment was unjustified. 2. Justification of Addition of ?46,50,000/-: The primary grievance was the addition of ?46,50,000/- by the AO, equating the stamp duty value of the property as taxable income. The assessee contended that the PoA did not transfer ownership rights and was merely for maintaining the property on behalf of the original owner, Smt. Harsharan Kaur. The CIT(A) observed that the PoA did not involve any monetary consideration and did not transfer property rights to the assessee. Despite this, the CIT(A) upheld the AO's addition, reasoning that the assessee acted as the owner by selling part of the land, thus invoking section 56(2)(vii)(b) for taxing the stamp duty value. Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal considered the submissions and relevant case laws, particularly the Supreme Court's decision in Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. vs. State of Haryana, which clarified that a PoA does not transfer any right, title, or interest in an immovable property. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was merely a PoA holder and not the owner of the property. The property was never transferred to the assessee's name, and the PoA was for maintaining the property on behalf of Smt. Harsharan Kaur. The Tribunal also referred to the ITAT Amritsar Bench's decision in ACIT vs. Janak Raj Chauhan, which held that a PoA does not confer ownership rights unless it is coupled with interest and involves consideration. The Tribunal concluded that the addition made by the AO was unjustified as the assessee did not receive the property but was only an attorney holder. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the addition of ?46,50,000/- made by the AO, and held that being a PoA holder did not make the assessee liable for tax on the stamp duty value of the property. The assessment order under sections 143(3)/147 was deemed invalid due to non-compliance with mandatory conditions under section 147. The decision emphasized that a PoA does not equate to ownership and cannot be taxed as such.
|
