9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 349X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f facts of the case are that the assessee [L/H of M.E. Duraiswamy] filed return of income by declaring total income of Rs.22,94,696/-. The original assessee Shri M.E. Duraiswamy had passed away on 03.02.2004 and as per copy of the legal heirship, his daughter Ms. Gayathri Viswanathan is the only legal heir. 3. The property in dispute was originally held by Smt. Seethalakshmi Duraisamy, wife of the deceased assessee and on the demise of Smt. Seethalakshmi on 31.05.2001, the property came to the absolute possession and enjoyment of Shri M.E. Duraiswamy. Shri Duraiswamy had entered into an agreement with Shri A.T. Krishnakumar for a consideration of Rs.1,03,00,000/- on 26.10.2001 and a statement in Form 37-1 was submitted on 01.11.2001 before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considering the explanation given by the assessee observed that the impugned property was transferred for a sale consideration of Rs.1,03,00,000/- through sale deed executed and registered on 22.10.2003, the property was given possession on the same day i.e. 22.10.2003. As such, the date of transfer cannot be any date other than 22.10.2003. Hence, the stamp duty valuing authority as adopted the value of the property as on 22.10.2003 of Rs.1,24,10,015/- stands adopted. 5. On being aggrieved, the assessee carried the appeal before the CIT(Appeals). 6. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has observed that the assessee, originally had entered into a transaction with the vendor on 01.11.2001when section 50C was not incorporated in the statute. No section ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... corporated in the statute book. 9. We have heard both parties, perused the orders of authorities below and brief paper book filed by the assessee. In this case, to sell the property at No. 14, Visweswarapuram Street, Alwarpet, Chennai, the assessee has originally entered into an agreement with Shri A.T. Krishnakumar for a consideration of Rs.1,03,00,000/- on 26.10.2001 and a statement in Form No. 37(1) submitted before the Appropriate Authority, Income Tax Department. The Appropriate Authority has passed an order for preemptive purchase of the property on 27.02.2002, which was challenged before the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the Court has directed the Appropriate Authority to reconsider the issue and pass a fresh order. Accordingly, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pect, simply went on whether section 50C of the Act applies prospective or retrospective. Whether the transfer is effected on 26.10.2001 or 22.10.2003 has to be seen in the light of the original agreement entered into upon the assessee. The CIT(Appeals) has not considered the agreement and he also not considered the payment made about Rs.26,70,000/- before registration. Moreover, we find that no copy of the agreement /sale deed executed by the vendor and vendee has been placed on record. In view of the above, we set aside the order passed by the CIT(Appeals) and direct the CIT(Appeals) to reconsider the issue after examining the sale agreement and other relevant aspects and pass fresh order after allowing sufficient opportunity of hearing t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anding over of the property being 22.10.2003, the contention of the assessee's representative to adopt 27.02.2002 cannot be considered as the date of sale and the Assessing Officer denied the claim made by the assessee under section 54 of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the CIT(Appeals). 11. The CIT(Appeals) allowed the ground raised by the assessee by following certain decisions without discussing the facts of the case and observed that the assessee had purchased the property within 15 months, where there was a stay of Hon'ble Madras High Court and if the limitation is excluded, it can be treated the assessee has purchased the property within one year. Aggrieved, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Visweswarapuram property is eligible for exemption under section 54. The issue requires reconsideration afresh. Therefore, we set aside the order passed by the CIT(Appeals) on this issue and direct the CIT(Appeals) to examine and reconsider the issue keeping in view of the above observations after allowing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 13. In so far as the appeal filed by the assessee is concerned [I.T.A. No. 109/Mds/2012], the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before us that the CIT(Appeals) enhanced the income without issuing notice to the assessee, which is mandatory as per section 251(2) of the Act. 14. The ld. DR could not controvert the submissions of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. 15. We have hear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
