9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing that there is no proof of payment of sale consideration of ₹ 1 lakh by Smt. Neeraja Reddy to assessee but the fact that assessee applied for permission to construct a house over the said plot in 2006 also proves that assessee was the owner of the property till it was sold to Shri G. Srinivas Reddy in the AY - the assessee herself declared the capital gain in the impugned AY and not in any earlier AY - the contention of assessee that Tribunal has committed a mistake by not taking into consideration all these facts and evidences while considering assessee’s submission in respect of applicability of section 50C is without merit - the Tribunal consciously came to a conclusion that the property was transferred by assessee in the AY and upheld the applicability of section 50C. - Rectification denied on this ground. The Tribunal has taken a decision in respect of the year of taxability on capital gain as well as the application of section 50C on overall consideration of facts and materials on record as well as the submissions made by parties, there is no reason to accept assessee’s contention that the order by the Tribunal is erroneous - assessee is only trying to reargue his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aken into consideration this evidence. The learned AR submitted that special power of attorney given by assessee to G. Yeshwant Reddy in conjunction with the transfer letter submitted before the society on 22/11/97 will make it clear that it was given as part of the agreement to sell the plot. He submitted that Smt. Neeraja Reddy has filed a writ petition before the Hon ble High Court of AP, which was decided in her favour. This evidence shows that she was the buyer desirous of transfer getting effectuated, which she had sought for while applying transfer of plot in her name in letter dated 12/0-3/2001. The learned AR referring to the sale deed dated 23/10/07 between assessee and Shri G. Srinivasa Reddy submitted that not only it proves that the sale consideration of ₹ 1 lakh was paid to assessee by Smt. Neeraja Reddy, but, also delivery of possession of the plot in 1994. He submitted that the ITO also made enquiries with the purchaser Shri G. Srinivasa Reddy, who confirmed the fact that he purchased the plot from Smt. Neeraja Reddy for consideration of ₹ 1 lakh. Thus, it was submitted that all these evidences conclusively prove that there was preexisting agreement unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l of the said letter, a copy of which is at page 24 of paper book would make it clear that though the letter is dated 20/04/94, but, it was submitted before the Jubilee Hills Cooperative House Building Society on 22/11/97 as per the endorsement made therein. Be that as it may, the filing of the said letter does not ipso-facto result in a transfer of the property in the name of Smt. Neeraja Reddy in absence of any other documentary evidence which shows conveyance of the property in favour of Smt. Neeraja Reddy. So far as assessee s contention that special power of attorney read in conjunction with letter submitted before the Jubilee Hills Cooperative House Building Society on 22/11/97 proves that there is an agreement to sale the plot, it is to be noted that the Tribunal while considering assessee s appeal has exhaustively dealt with the terms and conditions of the special power of attorney and has held that nowhere it speaks of transfer of plot in the name of Smt. Neeraja Reddy. 5. It is the contention of assessee that the Hon ble High Court of AP while deciding writ petition filed by Smt. Neeraja Reddy proves that she was a buyer of the property desirous of getting it transferr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rchaser, the so called handing over of possession in favour of Smt. Neeraja Reddy becomes meaningless. Furthermore, there is no documentary evidence to show that physical possession over the property was actually handed over in favour of Smt. Neeraja Reddy except recitals in the sale deed. If assessee s claim that the property was transferred to Smt. Neeraja Reddy in 1994 is correct, then, there was no necessity of assessee taking responsibility of indemnifying purchaser in the event of any future claim over the said property. It is also to be noted that the Tribunal in the appeal order has not only given a finding that there is no proof of payment of sale consideration of ₹ 1 lakh by Smt. Neeraja Reddy to assessee but the fact that assessee applied for permission to construct a house over the said plot in 2006 also proves that assessee was the owner of the property till it was sold to Shri G. Srinivas Reddy in the impugned assessment year. It is also relevant to note, the assessee herself declared the capital gain in the impugned assessment year and not in any earlier assessment year. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the contention of assessee that Tribunal has comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t material in basing its conclusions, the decision of the Tribunal is not liable to be interfered with, unless, of course, the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal are perverse. In the present case, it cannot be said that the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal is either on the basis of irrelevant materials or not considering relevant material and it cannot also be said that the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal is perverse. In fact the assessee has also not made any allegation that Tribunal has considered irrelevant materials or its conclusion is perverse. As the Tribunal has taken a decision in respect of the year of taxability on capital gain as well as the application of section 50C on overall consideration of facts and materials on record as well as the submissions made by parties, there is no reason to accept assessee s contention that the order by the Tribunal is erroneous. The decisions relied upon by the assessee and referred to in the written submissions regarding inapplicability of section 50 would have applied only in the event transfer had taken place prior to 01/04/2003. Since ITAT has held that transfer has taken place n the impugned assessment year the decisions w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
