9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erring to the recitals in the agreement of sale and that it was executed by Asiya Basheer, wife of assessee which is substantiated by the income tax returns filed by the purchaser, the AO rightly held that sale consideration was Rs.6,48,000/- which was confirmed by the CIT(Appeals) and the Tribunal. No legal infirmity warranting interference with the order of the Tribunal. The substantial question of law raised in this appeal is answered infavour of the revenue and Tax Case (Appeal) is dismissed. - Tax Case (Appeal) No.278 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 18-2-2013 - R. Banumathi And K. Ravichandra Baabu,JJ. For Appellant : Mr.J.Balachandran for Mr.S.Sridhar For Respondent : Mr.J.Narayanaswamy JUDGMENT Being aggrieved by dismissal o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e under Section 148 of Income Tax Act was issued to the assessee on 09.09.2004. In response to which, assessee had returned a total income of Rs.40,393/- comprising of property income, business income and income from other sources. Agricultural income of Rs.6,000/- was also disclosed. The capital gains on sale of property was not disclosed. Therefore, assessee was asked to produce Books of Account, Bank Accounts etc. In response to the same, the assessee filed a revised return showing capital gains at Rs.59,193/-. Assessee was asked to explain the difference in the sale consideration in the two documents viz., sale agreement and sale deed. The assessee submitted an application under Section 144A of the Act to the Additional Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not in India and there was no power/authorisation given by the assessee to anyone to deal with the property. Learned counsel further submitted that the agreement to sell the property by a person without proper registered Power of Attorney from the real owner does not have any legal existence in the eye of law and while so, the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax erred in believing that the assessee's wife obtained necessary instructions from her husband for executing the sale agreement. It was also contended that Asiya Basheer is not the owner of the property and the Authorities did not consider as to why she could execute the agreement and she has no right and further the sale deed dated 21.08.2000 was executed by one party only i.e. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated as Rs.6,48,000/-; whereas the sale deed was executed on 21.08.2000 stating the sale consideration as Rs.2,33,760/-. In her return, the purchaser of the property shown that an amount of Rs.6,48,000/- was invested for purchase of the property in Nilgiri Therkku Thottam. Amount of Rs.6,48,000/- has been accepted as the purchaser's investment in her income tax assessment. Purchaser had shown investment at Rs.6,48,000/- as the sale consideration for acquisition of property at Nilgiri Therkku Thottam. As pointed out by the Tribunal, it would be an anomaly if in the case of purchaser the sale consideration of Rs.6,48,000/- is accepted and it is not accepted in the case of the seller. 9. Referring to the recitals in the agreement of sale and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
