9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 723X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owner of certain rights in the property to the extent of 60% and accordingly directing the Assessing Officer to compute the capital gains arising from transfer of the said rights in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue is upheld, and the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Applicability of the provisions of S.50C - Held that:- It is observed that the market value of the property for stamp duty purpose was determined by the concerned authority at ₹ 3,99,55,000 and accordingly the stamp duty thereon was also duly paid, while registering the relevant agreement. The value adopted for the purpose of payment of stamp duty thus was not disputed by the relevant parties, including the assessee. The learned CIT(A), however, held that the assessee was not the owner of the property and since she had only limited rights over the property, which was also encumbered, the market value of the property as taken for the purpose of payment of stamp duty could not be adopted as the sale consideration by applying the provisions of S.50C. We have already concurred with the learned CIT(A) while deciding the issue involved in the appeal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... derabad should not be assessed in her hands by adopting the market value of ₹ 3,99,65,000. In reply, it was stated by the assessee that she is not aware of the said transaction and that she has not received any consideration out of the said transaction. The assessee however could not produce any evidence such as confirmation from buyers etc., to substantiate her claim and filed only some copies of encumbrance certificates. She also accepted that the signature appearing on the sale deed was her own signatures. Keeping in view this averment made by the assessee as well as her failure to produce any evidence to support and substantiate her claim of denial of transaction, the Assessing Officer brought to tax long term capital gain of ₹ 3,88,11,476 in the hands of the assessee for the year under consideration, after reducing the indexed cost of acquisition of ₹ 11,53,524 from the sale consideration of ₹ 3,99,65,000 adopted by him under S.50C of the Act, in the assessment completed under S.143(3) read with S.147, vide order dated 30.12.2011. 3. Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under S.143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant was that she was not the owner of the property, except holding to certain constructed part of the land located at Survey No.28, Rasoolpura, and was paying electrical charges for the property with such electric connection in her name, and the said facts do not entitle her to the ownership of the property admeasuring 3964 sq. yards, which was shown to have been sold vide the sale deed dated 03.04.2008, for a total consideration of ₹ 25,00,000 out of which ₹ 10,00,000 was received in cash by Mrs.D.Sriatha Kamakshi, W/o. Srinivas Rao, as against ₹ 15,00,000 DD issued in her name, which were also fraudulently encashed by appellant s sister Mrs.Vijaya Lakshmi, by opening a bank account by impersonation. Thus, as per the appellant, she was forced to sign on the documents, related to a property to which she was never a owner, except to hold the constructed area which was under occupation of her family and no consideration was received by her. Even on facts, it was proved that, 40% of the consideration was received by Mrs. Srilatha Kamakshi, proving that the appellant is not the owner or title for total of the property under reference, as such establishing that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Sec.50C of the Income-tax Act, which read as under: (1) Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is less than the value adopted (or assessed or assessable) by any authority of State Government (hereafter in this section referred to as the stamp valuation authority ) for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer, the value so adopted (or assessed or assessable) shall, for the purposes of section 48, be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer. (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), where- (a) the assessee claims before any Assessing Officer that the value adopted (or assessed or assessable) by the stamp valuation authority under sub-section (1) exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer; (b) the value so adopted (or assessed or assessable ) by the stamp valuation authority under sub-section (1) has not been disputed in any appeal or revision or no reference has been made before any other authority, court or the High Court, The Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he value as indicated in sale deed, is directed to be adopted. Further, the shares of the appellant in the said transaction is held to be confined to 60%. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to compute the taxable capital gains, on the above lines, after allowing the proportionate cost of acquisition. This ground of appeal is treated as partly allowed. 6. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer was directed by the learned CIT(A) to compute the capital gains chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee by taking her share at 60% of the total sale consideration of ₹ 25 lakhs. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee and Revenue both are in appeals before the Tribunal on the following grounds- Grounds in Assessee s Appeal: (1) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) VI/Hyderabad erred in restricting the ownership in the property to 60% share, when the Appellant is not at all the owner of the property. (2) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) VI/Hyd should have held the Appellant, as not the owner of the property. (3) Any other ground or modification of the grounds already filed with the permission of the Honourable ITAT. Grounds in R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d before us in the paper book filed by the assessee and find from a perusal of the relevant agreement referred to as Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney with Possession placed at pages 51 to 63 of the paper-book that the same was entered into by the assessee jointly with Smt. D. Shrilatha Kamakshi, as Vendors/Principals, with M/s. Sri Vinayaka Constructions as Purchasers/Attorney Holders. The said agreement was not only signed by the assessee, but she personally presented herself before the concerned Government authority for registration, after duly establishing her identity on the basis of Identity Card issued by the Election Commission of India. In the said agreement, assessee styled herself as the owners of the property having acquired the same from her father Shri D.Durga Prasad. It was also stated in the agreement that she had constructed a shed with AC-sheet roofing and got the same assessed under the Cantonment Board Act. It was further stated that she was paying taxes regularly in respect of the said property to the concerned authorities and was in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the same, since several years, exercising all rights of ownership. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
