9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1093X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td (NCCL), the assessee's receipts from NCCL were determined at Rs. 51,05,000/- and brought to tax in that year. On appeal, the CIT(A)- VI, Hyderabad directed the AO to assess the said income in respective years in which these amounts were actually received. He further directed to reopen the assessments for A Y. 1996-97 and 1997-98 to bring to tax the respective amounts received in those years. 2.1 As a result, the assessment for AY.1997-98 was reopened. As against the revised income admitted at Rs. 56,380/-, the assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 was completed on 28/03/2005 by determining the total income at Rs. 83,11,380/- bringing to tax the receipt of Rs. 85,05,000/- from NCCL as income from other sources. This addition consists of Rs. 35,70,000/- added on substantive basis and Rs. 49,35,000/- added on protective basis. An expenditure of Rs. 2,50,000/- towards litigation etc. was allowed while assessing the above income. 2.2 On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition made on substantive basis and deleted the addition made on protective basis. On the issue of nature of this receipt, the CIT (A) confirmed the stand taken by the AO and denied the assessee's claim that thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eeds, wherein the assessee was shown as one of the sellers or vendors, either the main vendor or the second or third vendor and accordingly, the sale proceeds received by him out of total amount of Rs. 1,66,80,000 was Rs. 85,05,000, on which there is no controversy. Further, CIT(A) observed that though the alleged price of the land of Rs. 15,00,000 as advance and the remaining amount of Rs. 15,00,000 was paid after completion of sale, the sale proceeds to the extent of Rs. 81,75,000 was given to others, on which also no comments were made by the ITAT. Thus, the CIT(A) observed that since the sale receipts realized by the assessee is only 51 % (Rs. 85,05,000/- out of total receipts of Rs. 1,66,80,000), the purchase price of the assessee needs to be restricted to 51% of the amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- as per the agreement for sale for sale dated 09.04.1986, mentioned herein above. Thus, the deemed purchase price paid and payable amounts to Rs. 15,30,000 and accordingly, since the assessee had paid an advance of Rs. 15,00,000 on 09.04.1986, and the remaining amount was paid after realization of sale proceeds, indexation is applicable on Rs. 15,00,000 only and the deemed amount paid afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30,00,000/- paid. He failed to appreciate that the entire agreed cost had accrued as liability payable to the owner and was paid as such in the course of the transaction. It is therefore prayed that the authorities below may be directed to take purchase price at Rs. 30,00,000/- with the benefit of cost of index as envisaged under law. 2. The ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C of Income tax Act, 1961 and is not appealable. The finding is perverse in law and is liable to be expunged and the charging of interests need to be evaluated under law." 7. Ld. DR submitted that M/s NCCL purchased the property situated at Banjana Hills in seven sale agreements, which are part of the paper book. She submitted that the assessee is not a owner of this piece of land, which was sold to M/s NCCL. She brought to our notice some of the agreements entered between vendor and vendee in which in first two agreements assessee's name is nowhere seen in the agreements. In other agreements, it was mentioned as consenting party. She submitted that as per the findings of the AO, assessee is not the owner of the property nor an agent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in favour of the assessee and the assessee has paid Rs. 30 lakhs in favour of Shri Ali Asghar Ceizure. There is no subsequent sale document on record as claimed by the assessee. However, assessee has stated that he has safeguarded the property from unlawful encroachment and he is in the absolute control over the property since 1986 and that he is aware of legal disputes on the property and he has spent lot of money on representing legal disputes on the property. It is submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is the main person in safeguarding the property as well as bringing the disputed parties on the table successfully to complete the sale with M/s NCCL. Considering the above facts, no doubt, the assessee is not the owner of the property since the assessee has not purchased the property by proper deed, but, undisputedly has paid consideration of Rs. 15 lakhs to Shri Ali Asghar Ceizure and was having absolute control over the disputed property in his possession all these years, it shows that the assessee had absolute control over the property by which he is also a part of owner and also assessee had played the role of a owner in the agreement of sale between the disputed parties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
