TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 904X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner : Shri T. N. Betgeri, JCIT For the Respondent : Shri Jayakumar, V.S. ORDER Per Vikas Awasthy, Judicial Member: The appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-VI, Chennai dated 17-04-2008 relevant to the Assessment Year (AY) 2004-05. 2. The assessee filed his return of income for the AY. 2004-05 on 29-07-2004 declaring his income as Rs. 27,81,075/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as the Act ) was issued to the assessee on 26-07-2005. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is co-owner of land and building situated at No. 22, Sardar Patel Road, Chennai a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisions of Section 50C are not applicable and allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved against the order of the CIT(Appeals), the Revenue has come in appeal before us. 3. Shri T.N. Betgeri, appearing on behalf of the Revenue vehemently supported the assessment order and submitted that the Assessing Officer had rightly applied the provisions of Section 50C of the Act. The ld. DR contended that the Assessing Officer had adopted the value as reflected in the registered document. The ld.DR prayed for setting aside the impugned order. 4. On the other hand, Shri Jayakumar, appearing on behalf of the assessee supporting the order of the CIT(Appeals) submitted that the transaction pertains to the period when the provisions of Section 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g NOC was issued by the Appropriate Authority in the present case. The final NOC was issued on 21-2-2000. The Revenue is clinching on this date to show that the NOC was issued on 21-2-2000 and, therefore, the transfer could have been taken place only after that date and never before that date and particularly on 28-11-1999. This argument of the Revenue is highly technical. The Revenue has overlooked the sequence of events preceded the issue of final NOC by the Appropriate Authority on 21-2-2000. To repeat again, the original agreement of sale was executed on 28-6-1996. The Appropriate Authority had issued the NOC on the basis of that agreement on 8-10-1996 itself. Thereafter the circumstances warranted to revise the agreement twice, one for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appropriate Authority. Therefore, it is to be seen that the NOC issued on 21-2-2000 relates back to 8-10-1996 and as such reinforces the fact of transfer of the property on 28-11-1999, when the possession was handed over to the buyers. In these circumstances, as far as this case is concerned, therefore, there is complete compatibility between the application of section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 with section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act and Chapter XX-C of the Incometax Act, 1961. The Revenue has not been able to controvert the findings given in the impugned order. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(Appeals). The order of the CIT(Appeals) is confirmed and the appeal of the Revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
