9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of assessee on this issue, however, while disposing of the appeal, the Tribunal has not passed a speaking order in the matter. The further submissions of assessee on applicability of section 50C is, as the property was transferred by assessee prior to coming into existence of section 50C in the statute, the said provision is not applicable in case of assessee. Further, to substantiate the claim that property was transferred in 1994 i.e. prior to insertion of section 50C to the statute, assessee has submitted that there is an agreement between the assessee and Smt. Neeraja Reddy on 20th April, 1994, as per which, assessee transferred the property in question to Smt. Neeraja Reddy and handed over possession. In this context, he has referred to a letter of assessee submitted before the Jubilee Hills Cooperative House Building Society on 22/11/97. The learned AR submitted that the Tribunal while coming to its conclusion has not taken into consideration this evidence. The learned AR submitted that special power of attorney given by assessee to G. Yeshwant Reddy in conjunction with the transfer letter submitted before the society on 22/11/97 will make it clear that it was given as part o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an appeal before the Collector and District Registrar, we find the same to be devoid of merit. A plain reading of section 50C as a whole makes it clear that filing of an appeal against valuation made by the stamp duty valuation authority for stamp duty purposes only makes the provision contained u/s 50C(2) inapplicable. However, so far as the applicability of section 50C(1) is concerned, filing of such appeal has absolutely no effect. In view of the aforesaid, we are unable to accept the contentions of the learned AR. So far as the nonMA appreciation/non-consideration of evidences filed by assessee is concerned, as can be seen, the primary submissions of assessee in this regard is the letter submitted by assessee before the society on 22/11/97 clearly establishes the transfer of property by assessee in favour of Smt. Neeraja Reddy on 20/04/94 but which has not been considered by the Tribunal. However, on a perusal of the said letter, a copy of which is at page 24 of paper book would make it clear that though the letter is dated 20/04/94, but, it was submitted before the Jubilee Hills Cooperative House Building Society on 22/11/97 as per the endorsement made therein. Be that as it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... operty Shri G. Srinivasa Reddy to the effect that the assessee has received sale consideration of Rs. 1 lakh from Smt. Neeraja Reddy and handed over the possession of the property in 1994. However, clause (5), (6), (7) & (8) of the said sale deed makes it abundantly clear that on the date of sale, assessee still retained her ownership as well as other ancillary and incidental rights over the property. The said recitals in agreement not only has no reference to Smt. Neeraja Reddy but also makes it clear that it is the assessee who is responsible in respect of any claim or right or interest over the schedule property by third parties and indemnifies the purchaser in respect of the said claim. Therefore, considered in the aforesaid perspective when assessee retains her absolute ownership rights as per clause 5.1 of sale deed over the property and absolute right to alienate the property in favour of the purchaser, the so called handing over of possession in favour of Smt. Neeraja Reddy becomes meaningless. Furthermore, there is no documentary evidence to show that physical possession over the property was actually handed over in favour of Smt. Neeraja Reddy except recitals in the sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... served that the Tribunal has taken cognizance of these evidences while recording assessee's argument, which is clearly evident from the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has not considered these evidences only because they do not find any reference in the finding of the Tribunal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. P. Ltd., 176 ITR 535 has held as under: "It is equally settled that the decision of the Tribunal has not to be scrutinized sentence by sentence merely to find out whether all facts have been set out in detail by the Tribunal or whether some incidental fact which appears on the record has not been noticed by the Tribunal in its judgment. If the court, on a fair reading of the judgment of the Tribunal, finds that it has taken into account all relevant material and has not taken into account any irrelevant material in basing its conclusions, the decision of the Tribunal is not liable to be interfered with, unless, of course, the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal are perverse." In the present case, it cannot be said that the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal is either on the basis of irrelevant m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
