Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Dr. S. Chandra Sekhar Versus ITO Ward-4 Rajahmundry

2016 (1) TMI 456 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM

Revision u/s 263 - Eligibility for the benefit u/s 54F need to be denied as per CIT(A) - Held that:- 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 (2013 (11) TMI 1444 - ANDHR .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r passed by Assessing Officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and 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 sho .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r 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 The Appellant : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, AR For The Respondent : Shri Ch. Omkareswar, DR ORDER ORDER PER V. DURGA RAO, Judicial Member: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT, Rajahmu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ower u/s 263 of the Act, issued a show cause notice to the assessee dated 18.2.2013 on the ground that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and show caused to the assessee why the order passed by the Assessing Officer cannot be reversed. In response to the show cause notice issued by the Ld. CIT, the assessee has submitted a detailed reply dated 7.3.2013. The Ld. CIT after considering the submissions filed by the assess .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in respect of u/s 54F of the Act, the Ld. CIT has observed that the assessee neither purchased the property nor constructed residential house property from the capital gain accrued from the sale of the capital asset. The assessee has only contributed money for the construction of the house and the land owned by his father. Therefore, the assessee is not eligible for the benefit u/s 54F of the Act and directed the Assessing Officer to revise his order as per his observations. 5. On being aggriev .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

neous 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 sub .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

assessee passed an order, it cannot be said that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 6. In so far as the claim of assessee in respect of u/s 54F of the Act is concerned, the assessee sold the property and the same was invested for the construction of the house on the land belonging to assessee s father and assessee is also having a 1/3rd share of the property as per the partition deed. He relied on the judgement of the Delhi High Court i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

itted that the assessing officer without making any enquiry and also not applying the mind passed the assessment order. Therefore, the order passed by the A.O. is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. To support his argument, he relied on the judgements in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi Vs. CIT 67 ITR 84 (SC) & 341 ITR 434 in the case of CIT Vs. Jawahar Bhattacharjee. The Ld. DR stated that the assessing officer has not made a proper enquiry, therefore, the assessment .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ers of the authorities below. The assessee is a nonresident individual filed a return of income by declaring nil income. The return filed by the assessee was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and after due process, the assessing officer completed the 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 f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

alling 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 value of the property is of ₹ 2,17,80,000/-. Ac .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

urchaser and GPA was executed in favour of the purchaser on 9.7.2007 and as on the date of execution of GPA, the market value of the property was ₹ 1,59,72,000/- and accordingly Assessing Officer came to a conclusion that the market value of the property is ₹ 1,59,72,000/-. Subsequently, the purchaser registered the property in his name on 29.8.2007, the market value of the property is ₹ 2,17,80,000/-. In our opinion, once assessee received sale consideration and transferred th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

al for the purpose of value of the property in the hands of the assessee. Hence, we find that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The order passed by the Ld. CIT on this count cannot stand. Even otherwise, the assessing officer after examining all the details of the property i.e. when the assessee originally purchased the property and the subsequent sale consideration, the market value of the property as per the stamp val .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r 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 po .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Products (supra) has observed that during the assessment proceedings the assessing officer had not only taken into account all the details but also disallowed some expenditure and made addition whenever same was required. A decision of the Assessing Officer could not be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue simply because it did not make detailed discussion and upheld the order passed by the Tribunal. Keeping in view of the above judicial precedent, we are of the opinion that the order pas .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ocument no.5441/1994 (4) ₹ 93,450/- on 18.8.194 vide document no.5507/1994. The assessee sold all the properties on 18.6.2007 vide document no.6542/2007 for a sale consideration of ₹ 80,91,000/-. The sale consideration has been invested by the assessee in a house property situated at Banjara Hills, Hyderabad value at ₹ 2,73,87,000/- by registered valuer which is standing in the name of the assessee and two other persons i.e. K. Penchala Naidu and Smt. Varalakshmi. He further ob .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

erefore not entitled for the benefit u/s 54F of the Act. We find that the assessing officer after examining all the details of the properties which Assessee was purchased earlier and sold subsequently and received consideration was invested on the property which i.e. in the name of his father Shri S. Penchala Naidu and claimed benefit u/s 54F of the Act. The assessing officer after examining all the details has passed the assessment order in detailed manner. In our opinion, the order passed by t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version