9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee. Unfortunately, the Tahsildar has not acted on the petition received even from an army officer. Even though a report was said to be prepared, the Tahsildar failed to forward the same to the higher authorities. Circumstances under which the sale deed executed by the assessee through her father Col. V.N. Lingappan is a distress sale. When the property was sold under pressure and this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that adopting guideline value under Section 50C is not called for. Under normal circumstances, this Tribunal would have remitted back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for referring the matter to the valuation officer. In this case, we are not doing so since the Assessing Officer himself accepted that the property was sold under pressure. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that remitting back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for the purpose of making reference to the valuation officer would tantamount not only harassing the assessee further but also rubbing the salt on the would again and again. This Tribunal is of opinion that the assessee executed the sale deed, the apparent sale consideration disclosed in the sale de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Ld. counsel, the assessee s father approached the Revenue authorities by means of various petitions right from Tahsildar and upto District Collector for cancellation of patta granted to the above said persons. Simultaneously, Col. V.N. Lingappan had also approached Registration authorities right from Sub Registrar and upto the level of Inspector General of Registration to cancel the document which was registered subsequently. Col. V.N. Lingappan also made a police complaint. However, no authorities of the State Government including District Collector, Inspector General of Registration and higher police officials, had taken any action on the complaint made by Col. V.N. Lingappan. Moreover, the property was also encroached by the above said persons. 3. Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee further submitted that in the Encumbrance Certificate granted by the Sub-Registrar on 09.04.2009, the name of the assessee was not disclosed. In other words, the document executed on 11.06.1997 is not reflected in the Encumbrance Certificate issued by Registration authority as on 09.04.2009. However, the Encumbrance Certificate issued by the very same authority on 18 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing Officer ought to have referred the matter to the valuation officer to find out the actual market value. Without referring to the valuation officer, according to the Ld. counsel, adopting the guideline value for estimating the capital gain is not justified. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, the computation of capital gain is not in accordance with the provisions of Income-tax Act. 5. On the contrary, Ms. M. Subashri, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee executed the registered sale deed in favour of the above said Shri I.A.J. Balan, Shri I.P. Andrew Raj, Shri I.S.J. Rozario, Shri I. Francis Jeyaraj and Shri I. Jerome Michael Pushpanathan claiming that she is the owner of the property. The document was executed on behalf of the assessee by her father Col. V.N. Lingappan. Therefore, according to the Ld. D.R., at this stage, the assessee cannot claim that the property was under litigation or encumbrance, hence, the market value was only ₹ 6,00,000/-. According to the Ld. D.R., when the property was sold for less than the guideline value prescribed by the Registration authorities, the Assessing Officer has no other way except to compute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tely, the Tahsildar has not acted on the petition received even from an army officer. Even though a report was said to be prepared, the Tahsildar failed to forward the same to the higher authorities. 7. Moreover, the assessee s father Col. V.N. Lingappan approached the Sub Registrar, District Registrar and Inspector General of Registration for cancellation of registration of the fraudulent document executed by the vendor on 20.07.1999 in favour of Shri I.A.J. Balan, Shri I.P. Andrew Raj, Shri I.S.J. Rozario, Shri I. Francis Jeyaraj and Shri I. Jerome Michael Pushpanathan. The request of the assessee s father was rejected by these authorities on the ground that there is no provision for cancellation of registration of document in the Registration Act. If there is no provision for cancellation of registration of document, this Tribunal is unable to understand which provision of the Registration Act enables the Sub Registrar to register another document from the very same vendor in respect of the very same property? This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the document said to be registered on 20.07.1999 is a fraudulent one. When the document was registered fraudulently, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad sold the property under pressure, the provision of Section 50C is clear that if the sale value is less than the valuation adopted, assessed or assessable by the stamp duty authorities, the valuation as adopted, assessed or assessable by the stamp duty authorities will be considered for the purpose of computation of capital gains arising in transfer of property. In this case the value assessed by the SRO office was ₹ 63,14,500/-. Hence as per section 50C of Income-tax Act 1961, the sale value for calculating capital gain is taken ₹ 63,14,500/-. 10. When the property was sold under pressure and the circumstance which was narrated above, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that adopting guideline value under Section 50C of the Act is not called for. Under normal circumstances, this Tribunal would have remitted back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for referring the matter to the valuation officer. In this case, we are not doing so since the Assessing Officer himself accepted that the property was sold under pressure. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that remitting back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for the purpose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
