9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 737X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e hands of the Appellant as against the actual sale consideration of Rs. 2,70.00.000/- as per the Registered Sale Deed dtd: 11-07-2013 which collectively belonged to Four Co-owners who were the vendors of the HUF Property and each one of them had undivided 114th Share of Rs. 67,50,000/- out of the Total Consideration of Rs. 2,70,00,000/-. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the Appellant was entitled for deduction admissible u/s. 54F of the Act, in respect of the Sale Consideration of Rs. 39,86,280/-inclusive of Stamp Duty and Registration Fee in acquiring a New residential flat bearing No. G-2. Creative Environs, 2nd Sector HSR Layout, Bangalore. 5. Without Prejudice to the above grounds the Appellant submits that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the Appellant in his Status of "HUF" was liable to Capital Gains Tax in respect of his 1/4th Share of Sale Consideration out of the Total Sale Consideration of Rs. 2,70,00,000/- as against the assumed sale consideration of Rs. 4,88,75,000/-. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding the Sale Consideration at Rs. 4,88,75,000/- without any basis and merely considering the details furnished by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the Hon'ble bench be pleased to admit the additional grounds for adjudication for the cause of substantial justice." 3. Further, assessee filed petition under Rule 11 of the Tribunal Rules to admit the additional ground stating that there was no necessity of investigation of any facts on the grounds urged before the Tribunal and it relates to the same facts and circumstances of the case prevailed on assessment records and admission of additional grounds do not cause any prejudice to the revenue, since the matter would be ultimately disposing of on the basis of the merits of the case. On the other hand, if the additional grounds are not admitted, the assessee would be put to hardship and denial of justice, otherwise admissible in accordance with law. Further, he placed reliance on judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. Vs. CIT and prayed to admit the additional grounds. 4. The Ld. DR did not put any serious objection for admission of additional grounds. 5. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. As seen from the additional grounds of appeal, which go to the ro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s/o the Appellant iv. Smt. Vathsala daughter in law of the Appellant 3. The Appellant being Kartha of the HUF had inherited the following properties from his ancestors. SI. No. Sy. No. and Location Extent of Land 1 123, Narayanaghatta Village, Sarjapur Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District 1Acre 6 Guntas 2 124, Narayanaghatta Village, Sarjapur Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban 2Acres 22Guntas 3 126, Narayanaghatta Village, Sarjapur Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban 1Acre 8 Guntas 4 127, Narayanaghatta Village, Sarjapur Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban 1Acre 34 Guntas 5 132, Narayanaghatta Village, Sarjapur Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban 1 Acre Total Extent of Land 7 Acres 30 Guntas 4. The above lands were originally owned by One Nanjundappa s/o Byanna as his ancestral property. On expiry of the aforesaid Nanjunadappa, the lands were devolved upon Smt. Kondamma w/o Late. Nanjundappa. The aforesaid lands were transferred in favour of N. Ramareddy her grandson and the katha was also transferred in the name of N. Ramareddy. 5. On expiry of N. Ramareddy, the aforesaid lands were succeeded by the Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ified to direct the AO adopt the Sale Consideration of Rs. 4,88,75,000/-, as against the sale consideration of Rs. 2,70,00,000/- out of which the Appellant's 114th share amounts to Rs. 67,50,000/-. Hence the Appellant submits that his 114th share amounts to Rs. 67,50,000/- out of the total sale consideration of Rs. 2,70,00,000/- and the balance sale consideration of Rs. 2.02,50,000/- belongs to the other 3 co-owners of the Property. Accordingly the Appellant prays that his 114th Share of Sale Consideration of Rs. 67,50,000/- requires to be considered for the purpose of Capital Gains as against the amount of Rs. 4.88,75,000/- directed by the Ld. CIT(A) to be adopted for the purpose of levy of Capital Gains Tax based on TDS Details in 26AS Format relating to a sum of Rs. 1,85,00,000/-, Rs. 1,43,75,000/- and Rs. 1,60,00,000/- found recorded in the 26AS Format which is not correct. 10. The Appellant further submits that out of the Sale Consideration of Rs. 67,50,000/- a sum of Rs. 39,94,280/-inclusive of Stamp Duty and Registration Fee, was invested in purchasing a New Residential House situated at Ground Floor bearing No. G-02, BBMP Katha No. 621/140/137/105/1/55/9/2 in the apar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entitled to 12 Villa Sites against 14 accepted in MOU dtd: 01-05-2013. 5. The Appellant and his Son have entered into Second Supplementary MOU dtd: 12-08-2013 wherein it was mentioned that a Sale Deed has been executed in favour of the Ratheesh Nambiar in respect of item No. 1 to 4 of the Schedule property with the consent of the Second Party being M/s. Nambiar Builders Pvt Ltd and Buy Back option was provided to purchase the villas agreed to be allotted in favour of the Appellant. 6. The Appellant submits that the aforesaid MOUs dtd: 01- 05-2013, 27-06-2013 and 12-08-2013 did not materialize owing to certain constraints that the developer Company M/s. Nambiar Builders Pvt Ltd .vas not entitled to own-up in view of the restrictions of the Land Reforms Act according to which the agricultural lands in Karnataka are to be sold only to an agriculturist. Further a part of the aforesaid lands was a buffer zone. Therefore the Nambiar Builders Pvt Ltd., have backed out from the agreed conditions mentioned in the aforesaid MOUs and alternatively the aforesaid lands mentioned in SI. No. 1 to 4 of the Schedule annexed to aforesaid MOUs were later sold in favour of an Individual Sri. Rathe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case of the TDS is not justifiable in law since the property agree to be developed by the Developer M/s. Nambiar Builders Pvt Ltd who have deducted the TDS was not materialized and the land was not transferred in favour of the said Company and therefore the Appellant is not liable for Capital Gain Tax in the absence of transfer of property. Therefore the addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is liable to be deleted in the interest of equity and justice. 9. The Appellant submits herewith a Geniological Tree in support of the contention that the lands sold in favour of the individual Sri Ratheesh Nambiar vide Sale deed dtd: 11-07- 2013 were ancestral property and the lands sold were the same lands which were agreed for development with the Developer Company M/s. Nambiar Builders Pvt. Ltd. as per MOU dtd: 01-05-2013, Supplementary Agreement dtd: 27- 06-02013 and Second Supplementary Agreement dtd; 12-08- 2013." 6. The Ld. D.R. submitted that the CIT(A) properly considered the sale transactions and quantified it at Rs. 4,88,75,000/- and it is supported by form No.26 AS reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A) in para 9 page 4 of the CIT(A) order. According to the Ld. D.R., there is no erro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
