9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 983X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 90 lakhs and offered no objection to perform his part of agreement subject to payment of remaining sale consideration of ₹ 60 Lakhs with interest @ 24% after the grace time i.e. after 110 days of time but noting said about refund of ₹ 27 Lakhs. It is the case of the Assessee that total sale consideration was fixed @ 1.5 Crores and out of which ₹ 90 Lakhs was paid as advance amount and remaining balance to be payable was ₹ 60 Lakhs only. From the reply of the seller to the notice sent by the Assessee, it is clear that the seller was asking remaining amount of ₹ 60 Lakhs only and has not disputed the receiving of ₹ 90 Lakhs, which goes to show that question for refund of ₹ 27 Lakhs to the As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O examined the seller u/sec. 131 of the Act and noticed that the seller is a close relative of the Assessee and from the bank account statements of the seller it appears that there were withdrawals of ₹ 90 lakhs immediately after receipt of the advance amount. Further, there were withdrawals to the tune of ₹ 27 lakhs by the Assessee herself on 21/05/2014. The AO also observed that the Assessee did not get register the property even after lapse of 2 years from the date of agreement. No prudent person will wait for such a long time after giving such huge advance and the advance given by the Assessee to her relative is an arranged transaction and colourable devise to avoid capital gains tax. Ultimately, the AO denied the claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtment not doubted the same. On the basis of documents the Ld. Commissioner clearly held that the sale agreement dated 19/05/2014 by which the property was purchased by the Assessee and advance of ₹ 90 lakhs was paid, is a genuine transaction and not an arranged transaction and colourable device to avoid payment of capital gains tax as alleged by the AO in the assessment order and the remand report. 4.1 What can be seen that in pursuance to the agreement referred above, the Assessee has paid ₹ 90 lakhs through RTGS to the seller which is not in dispute. The only controversy relates to the amount of ₹ 27 lakhs which was withdrawn by the Assessee from the account of the seller who is undisputedly relative of the Assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Assessee to the seller and reply of the Seller s advocate were produced before the Ld. Commissioner. From the said documents it is clear that the Assessee had issued a legal notice through her lawyer on dated 28-01-2019 to the Seller wherein alleged to have been paid ₹ 90 Lakhs to the seller and called upon the seller to execute and register the sale deed. The Seller vide reply dated 12-02-2019 through his lawyer did not refute the acceptance of ₹ 90 lakhs and offered no objection to perform his part of agreement subject to payment of remaining sale consideration of ₹ 60 Lakhs with interest @ 24% after the grace time i.e. after 110 days of time but noting said about refund of ₹ 27 Lakhs. It is the case of the As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
