9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 777X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cital made in the sale deed - ITA No. 457/PUN/2020 - - - Dated:- 15-7-2022 - SHRI S.S. GODARA, JM AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM Appellant by : Shri S.P. Walimbe Respondent by : None ORDER PER S.S. GODARA, JM : This Revenue s appeal for A.Y. 2011-12 is against the CIT(A)-13, Pune s order dated 27-01-2020 passed in case No. PN/CIT(A)-13/ITO Ward (IT)- 3/10112/2018-19/507 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in short the Act . Case called twice. None appears at assessee s behest. She is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 2. The Revenue raises the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C1T( A) erred in holding that the assessee had vide sale deed dated 05.01.2011 actually transferred only 777.20 Sq.Mts. of land to the purchaser and erred in directing the AO to adopt the proportionate Stamp Duty value of Rs.1,78,24,707/- as the sale consideration and recompute the capital gain after giving benefit of indexation. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has not mentioned the evidence produced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee had sold immovable property admeasuring 3277.2 sq. mts - CTS No.1928, S.No.101, Hissa No.31, Village Yerangal on 05.01.2011 for a consideration of Rs. 1 crore to Shri Ryan Rupen Patel. However, as per Index-II, the market value of the said property as on the date of sale was Rs. 7,51,61,000/ - which was also adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority for the purpose of payment of stamp duty. In this regard, the AO contended that as per section 50C of the IT Act, value of Rs. 7,51,61,000/- adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority should be treated as full value of consideration received by the assessee. In this regard, show cause notices were issued to the legal heir of the deceased assessee by the AO asking as to why an amount of Rs. 7,51,61,000/- should not be deemed to be the value of the consideration received as per the provision of section 50C of the Act. In response to the show cause notices, Ld AR for the assessee submitted that as per sale deed dated 17.1.1991, 2500 sq. mts of land out of total land of 3277.2 sq. mts was already sold in 1991. Further, in the para-M of the current sale agreement, it was mentioned that the balance 777.2 sq. mts land was sold for the total co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7,51,61,000/- for the entire 3277.2 sq. mts., the proportionate value for the land admeasuring 777.20 sq. mts comes to Rs. 1,78,24,707/ - whereas the agreement value was only Rs. 1,00,00,000/- and therefore, the contention of the assessee that there was no violation of section 50C of the Act, was not acceptable. Hence, in view of the above, the AO deemed the value of the property at Rs. 7,51,61,000/- as adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority and after allowing the deduction of the indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 27,97,358/- as claimed by the assessee, calculated the LTCG of Rs.7,23,63,642/ - to be held taxable in the hand of the assessee. 2.2 During the appellate proceedings, the Appellant filed a written submission which is extracted as under: The assessee is challenging the addition of Rs. 7,23,63,642/ - to his total income under the head long term capital gain. The assessee himself expired on 20/03/2017. His wife is a French national permanently settled in France. His estate in India is represented by his other relatives being his legal representatives. The dispute in the case is centred on the sale of an immovable property situated at S. no. 10, Hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and picking certain other references in the document out of its context. The assessee shall now give a page wise rebuttal of the assessing officer's contentions from. the document itself which the assessee has separately enclosed for your honour's record. 1) Page No. 1 is the Index II of the deed of conveyance dated 05/01/2011 which admittedly shows the subject matter of sale as land admeasuring 3277.2 sq. mtrs. with stamp duty value of Rs. 7,51,61,000/- 2) On page 3 clause (c) of the document it is mentioned that 2500 s4. mtrs. of land out of the total land was said to. Mr. Azim Premji vide agreement of sale dated 17 Jan 1991. Further an page 4 it is clearly averred that the said agreement was registered with the Appropriate Authority u/ s 269UA of the Income Tax Act and that a no. objection. certificate u/ s 269UL(3) of the Income Tax Act was also. received Jar that transfers. A copy of the said clearance certificate is attached to. the document itself. 3) On page 6 clause (i) it is stated in unambiguous wards that now there remains the balance land of 777.20 sq. mtrs. being portion. of the said property (out of land admeasuring 3277.2 sq. mtrs) with th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trs by Mr. Azim Premji to Mr. Ryan Patel on 16/05/2008 and collected the full stamp duty only on the agreement dated 16/05/2008. This mistake was discovered when the conveyance of the balance portion of 777.2 sq. mtrs between the assessee and Mr. Ryan Patel was presented for registration on 5 Jan 2011. The Sub Registrar had to therefore show on record that it was conveyance of the entire 3277.2 sq. mtrs. even though in actual fact it was a conveyance of only 777.2 sq. mtrs. This explains the wording of clause (m) quoted by the Assessing Officer where it acknowledges that now only balance land of 777.2 sq. mtrs. remains with the vendor but further proceeds to say that the vendor has conveyed the entire property of 3277.2 sq. mirs. It is pertinent to note that the same clause (m) mentions about the credit for stamp duty on 2500 sq. mtrs being given which the A. O. either missed or conveniently ignored. The assessee therefore pleads that the assessing officer's approach in adopting the stamp duty value of the entire property admeasuring 3277.2 sq. mtrs. for computation of capital gain was patently unjustified. The assessee has already demonstrated hereinbefore that it was on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
