9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 575X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dopted for the purpose of capital gains. Further onus always lies on the Revenue to prove the existence of the material from which inference can be drawn that higher consideration was in fact received. In the present case, there was no material to draw interference that higher consideration was received than what was stated in the sale deed. It is not even the case of AO that the provisions of Section 50C are applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the AO was not justified in adopting consideration of ₹ 28,12,500/- as against ₹ 8,33,000/- declared by assessee. Therefore, the Grounds of Appeal raised by assessee are allowed. - I.T.A. No. 437/HYD/2015 - - - Dated:- 7-9-2017 - Shri D. Manmohan, Vice President And Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member For Assessee : Shri S. Rama Rao, AR For Revenue : Shri V. Sreekar, DR ORDER Per Inturi Rama Rao, A. M. This appeal filed by assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Kurnool, dated 30-01-2015 for the AY. 2006-07. The appellant raised the following Grounds of Appeal: 1. The order of the CIT (A) dated 30-01-2015 is perverse, illegal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ul the order of the CIT(A) and ITO in respect of the adoption of the sale consideration at ₹ 28,12,500/- . 2. Briefly, facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual deriving income under the head income from other sources and capital gains . The return of income for the AY. 2006- 07 was filed on 31-08-2009 determining the total income at ₹ 2,10,330/- and agricultural income at ₹ 42,500/-. Obviously, the return was filed beyond the prescribed time. Subsequently, a notice u/s. 142 of the Income Tax Act [Act] was issued. Assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 31-03-2009 accepting returned income of ₹ 2,10,330/- and agricultural income of ₹ 42,500/-. Subsequently, the CIT-Tirupati exercising the power of revision vested with him u/s. 263 of the Act had set aside the assessment vide order dt. 27-03-2012 on the ground that the AO had failed to examine certain issues. 3. According to the Ld.CIT, the AO had failed to examine the following items, which are given below: 2. During the course of assessment, certain discrepancies have not been properly reconciled by the Assessing Officer, the details of which are given below. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rs. Nil. It is not clear as to how ₹ 16,500/- expenditure is to be incurred for realizing this bank interest. This is clearly a lapse on the part of the Assessing Officer resulting an erroneous and prejudicial orders. 5. The assessee has purchased 10 Guntas of land at Kodigehalli, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North on 14.12.2005. The sources are inter alia explained as ₹ 5 lakhs from realization from sundry debtors and ₹ 10 lakhs as received from Mr. Rayappa Reddy, USA. No enquiries were caused by the Assessing Officer about the genuineness of these receipts used for purchasing the property at Kodigehalli. 6. The transactions in the account of the assessee with Canara Bank, Bangalore Hebbal Branch such as cash deposits of ₹ 5 lakhs on 13.12.2005 and ₹ 8 lakhs on 14.12.2005 and with drawal of ₹ 20 lakhs in favour of one Mr. Ashok were not verified . 4. The explanation offered by the assessee during the course of proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act was not accepted by the learned Commissioner and therefore, the assessment had been set aside with a direction to make enquiries as to the taxability of the above transaction. Pursuant to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... improvements for the land at ₹ 75,6301/-. The assessee did not produce any evidence for the same. However, considering the nature of transaction, the assessee could have inclined some expenditure towards brokerage and improvements. Therefore 50% of the expenditure claimed is disallowed which works out to ₹ 54,475/- . 4.1. In short, AO adopted proportionate sale consideration of ₹ 1,50,00,000/- received on account of sale of property situated at Hebbal sold vide sale deed No. 6219/2008-2009 in the proportion of extent of land held and sold by him without accepting the contention of the appellant that pursuant to the old agreement between appellant and Smt. Ghattamaneni Venkata Subbamma and Shri I. Venu Gopal Reddy. The total consideration received of ₹ 1,50,00,000/- was apportioned among themselves in terms of MoU entered by them. Being aggrieved by the above, appellant filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and the same was dismissed by the CIT(A) by stating as under: As stated in the earlier paras, the due share of the assessee which is in proportion to his share of land holding of 12 guntas was correctly computed by the Assessing Officer at ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITR 71] (SC) in support of the proposition that unless there is evidence that more than the consideration stated in the executed deed was received, no higher consideration can be adopted for the purpose of computation of capital gains. He also drawn our attention to the provisions of Section 48, wherein it was mentioned that the only full value of the consideration of the property should be adopted for the purpose of computation of capital gains. He also placed reliance on the order of Amitabh Bachchan Vs. DCIT [3 SOT 428] (Mum). On the other hand, the Ld.DR placed reliance on the orders of the lower authorities. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In the present case, the dispute is only with regard to adoption of value of sale consideration for the purpose of computing the capital gains in respect of property sold jointly along with Smt. Ghattamaneni Venkata Subbamma and Shri I. Venu Gopal Reddy situated at Hebbal for a total consideration of ₹ 1,50,00,000/-. There is no dispute as regards the total consideration received. The dispute is only with regard to apportionment of the sale consideration among the owners on property, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
