9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 529X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri V. Raghavendra Rao, AR For The Revenue : Shri A. Seetharama Rao, DR ORDER PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. : This is an appeal by assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI, Hyderabad, dated 29-08-2013 on the issue of capital gains brought to tax during the year on sale of certain lands claimed to be agricultural lands. 2. The appeal memo was filed with a delay of twenty six days including intervening holidays. Both assessee and his Counsel gave affidavits explaining the cause of delay. Considering the same, we are of the opinion that there is sufficient cause in filing appeal belatedly. We hereby condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. Briefly stated facts are that assessee, an individual, had filed the return of income admitting the total income at ₹ 12,41,930/-, with a note in return of income indicating that he received a sale consideration of ₹ 61,00,000/- towards sale of agricultural land, and his share has been utilized in house construction/repairs. However, the profits on sale of such lands were not included in total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssue. Regarding the issue of receipt of sale consideration by the consenting party, which is to the extent of ₹ 51,85,000/-, it was submitted that, the land under reference were sold earlier to M/s. Sai Chaithanya Housing Pvt. Ltd. much before the sale deeds dated 30.09.2007 and a portion of sale consideration was received by the consenting parties as indicated in sale deed with a reference to the oral agreement and such consideration was: also confirmed by the consenting parties, which was shown to have been taken for their tax purpose. It was further submitted that both the right holders viz. the assessee and consenting party have registered sale deeds for consideration of ₹ 41,00,000/- and ₹ 20,00,000/-, out of which the share of the appellant is to the extent of ₹ 6,15,000/- and ₹ 3,00,000/respectively, as against the share of consenting party to the extent of ₹ 51,85,000/- and the share of consideration for each party is indicated in the sale deed. It was further contended that the consenting parties have categorically admitted the receipt of ₹ 34.85 lakhs out of ₹ 41.00 lakhs and ₹ 17.00 lakhs out of ₹ 20.00 Iakhs, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfirmed by the consenting party. But, the missing link in these transactions is how the consenting party has acquired the rights in the said property from the appellant, without any written deed/agreement and without payment of any consideration. It is difficult to believe that the appellant having purchased the property at ₹ 3,00,000/- lakh per acre in year 2005 has sold at the same rate in the year 2007, if it is to be believed that he has only received ₹ 9,15,000/towards his share of sale consideration, which was the peak period in real estate at Hyderabad. Further, it is also difficult to believe that major share of the rights in the property would be handed over to a third party without any consideration and without any agreement in writing. It is also relevant to mention here that the appellant voluntarily mentioned in the return of income, indicating the sale consideration received by him for sale of lands, was ₹ 61,00,000/- and the same was shown to have been invested in the specified asset, i.e., the existing property of the appellant located at H.No. 16-11-739, Gaddiannaram, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. It is also a fact that the appellant neither denied suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me is not exigible to tax. He also filed additional evidence in the form of various certificates to affirm that the impugned lands are agricultural in nature. With reference to the contention that the municipal limits of Hyderabad does not extend to the HMDA limits, he relied on the following Co-ordinate Bench decisions: i. Smt. C. Vijay Kumari Vs. ITO, in ITA No. 1797/Hyd/14, dt. 05-06-2015; ii. Smt. R. Uma Devi Vs. DCIT, in ITA No. 350/Hyd/14, dt. 11-03-2015; iii. Smt. N. Sarojini Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 226/Hyd/14, dt. 11-03-2015; iv. Harniks Park (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO [41 taxmann.com 109] (Hyderabad) dt. 27-09-2013; v. M/s. Goutham Constructions Vs. ITO in ITA No. 307/Hyd/2011, dt. 27-09-2013; vi. Smt. T. Urmila Vs. ITO in ITA No. 398/Hyd/2012 [28 taxmann.com 222] (Hyderabad) dt. 12-12-2012; 8. Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities. 9. During the course of hearing, the Ld. Counsel was asked to explain the nature of ownership on lands, as assessee has only signed as AGPA holder of a third party but not as owner. He expressed his helplessness as the purchase deeds were not placed on record. 10. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rough vide AGPA Document No. 6729/2005, dated 11th day of November, 2005 of SRO, Maheshwaram. AND M/S SAI CHAITANYA HOUSING (P) Ltd (registered and incorporated under company s act 1956) Flat No: 311, Annapurna Block, Aditya Enclave, Ameerpet, Hyderabad represented by its Chairman Sri Dhulipalla Samba Siva Rao, S/o. Satyanarayana, Age: 48 Years, R/o. Ameerpet, Hyderabad. (Herein after called the CONSENTING PARTY / AGREEMENT HOLDERS which expression of the vendor shall mean and include all their heirs, executors, administrators, legal representatives, nominees and assignees etc., of SECOMND PART . The above recitals clearly indicate that assessee has acted in representative capacity as a General Power of Attorney holder and not as owner of the land. The exact relationship and appropriation of funds require verification. The so called AGPA by which assessee came into possession of land/right, if any, was not placed on record, so as to examine this aspect. 10.1. The sale deeds clearly indicate that Sai Chaitanya Housing (P) Ltd., also has certain rights by virtue of agreements. Whether the agreement is with assessee as GPA holder or with the actual owners separate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
