TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 456X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd therefore the order passed by the Ld. CIT u/s 263 of the Act cannot survive. So far as merits of the case is concerned in respect of the claim u/s 54F of the Act, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has considered this issue in the case of Balraj Vs. CIT (2001 (12) TMI 51 - DELHI High Court ) and observed that for claiming benefit u/s 54F of the Act, it is not necessary that the assessee should become a owner of property purchased by him by registration of documents. In the present case, there is a memorandum of family agreement dated 15.10.2006 between assessee and his father & mother. In accordance with the above agreement assessee is entitled for 1/3rd share of the property. Therefore, in our opinion the assessee is entitled for the claim u/s 54F of the Act. The decision of the Delhi High Court squarely applies to the facts of the above case and we hold that the Assessing Officer on merits has allowed the case u/s 54F of the Act in accordance with law. This cannot be a case for revision u/s 263 of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee - I.T.A.No.350/Vizag/2013 - - - Dated:- 18-11-2015 - SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... akhs by executing the General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 9.7.2007 and the market value of the property of ₹ 1,59,72,000/- was adopted by the Assessing Officer as per section 50C of the Act and after verifying all the details, assessment was completed. Therefore, the order passed by the Assessing Officer cannot be said that it is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. He further submitted that the assessee has received sale consideration on 18.6.2007 through a cheque and subsequently through a GPA dt.9.7.2007 the property was sold to the purchaser and the purchaser of the property got registered on 29.8.2007 and submitted that when assessee already received the amount and signed the GPA and transferred his entire rights to the purchaser, the transfer was concluded as per section 2(47)(v) of the Act and subsequent date of the registration is immaterial for the purpose of the market value of the property in the hands of the assessee. In support of the same, he has placed reliance in the case of DCIT Vs. S. Venkata Reddy (2013) 57 SOT 117 (Hyd) and Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of CIT-VI Hyderabad Vs. Anand Food Products (20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. The assessing officer in the assessment order has observed that on verification of the record, it was found that the assessee has purchased an agricultural land at Rajahmundry on 21.2.1985 vide document no.6525/1985 for an amount of ₹ 45,000/- and also incurred expenditure towards stamp duty of ₹ 2,280/- and the same property was sold on 9.7.2007 vide document no.8719/2007 for an amount of ₹ 60 lakhs. However, the market value of the same adopted by the Sub-Registrar was ₹ 1,59,72,000/-. Hence, this market value amount i.e. 1,59,72,000/- is adopted for the purpose of computation of capital gain as per the provisions of section 50C of the Act. We find that the assessing officer after calling the details such as the property which was originally purchased by the assessee and also subsequently sold to the purchaser on 9.7.2007 through a GPA. The Assessing Officer also examined the sale consideration of ₹ 60 lakhs and market value as on date of 9.7.2007 was ₹ 1,59,72,000/- and accordingly capital gains was calculated. The objection of the Ld. CIT is that as on the date of the registration i.e. 29.8.2007 the market v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he revenue. In this context, the Hon ble Gujarat High Court has observed that in the case of CIT Vs. Arvind Jewellers 259 ITR 502 (Guj) Assessing Officer having made an assessment after considering relevant material and the explanation offered by the assessee in pursuance of the notice issued u/s 143(1) of the Act as well as u/s 143(2) of the Act action u/s 263 of the Act was not justified merely because a different view was possible appraisal of the material produced by the assessee. In the case of CIT Vs. S. Venkata Reddy (supra), the Hyderabad bench of the Tribunal has held that as per section 2(47)(v) of the Act when the vendor given the possession of the property to the purchaser it has to be considered that the transfer is complete on the date of the agreement of the sale. The transfer was completed in terms of section 2(47)(v) by giving possession of the property in terms of the sale agreement dated 13.6.2005 registration was delayed on bonafide reasons which was beyond the control of the assessee and sale deed was executed on 25.11.2005 was only a legal formality. The jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Anand Food Products (supra) has observed that during the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... detailed manner. In our opinion, the order passed by the Assessing Officer cannot be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue for the reason that the assessing officer after making a detailed enquiry, he has allowed the claim of the assessee u/s 54F of the Act. Keeping in view of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Anand Food Products as discussed (supra) the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner cannot survive. So far as merits of the case is concerned in respect of the claim u/s 54F of the Act, the Hon ble Delhi High Court has considered this issue in the case of Balraj Vs. CIT (supra) and observed that for claiming benefit u/s 54F of the Act, it is not necessary that the assessee should become a owner of property purchased by him by registration of documents. In the present case, there is a memorandum of family agreement dated 15.10.2006 between assessee and his father mother. In accordance with the above agreement (paper book page 28 29) assessee is entitled for 1/3rd share of the property. Therefore, in our opinion the assessee is entitled for the claim u/s 54F of the Act. The decision of the Delhi High Court squarely applies to the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
