TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of the land. The assessee had entered into agreement cum possession of the property dated 21.04.1999 placed in page No.8 to 10 of the paper book as per which the total consideration was only ₹ 30,000/- and the property was given possession with a condition to register the said land whenever the assessee requested for registration. As per the said sale agreement cum possession, the transaction was complete and the sale consideration was fixed at ₹ 30,000/- which was fully paid by the assessee. Though the assessee stated to have paid ₹ 8,00,000/- subsequent to registration, there was no mention regarding the amounts payable in the sale agreement or the evidence with the assessee regarding the payment. AO simply accepted the explanation of the assessee without any supporting evidence. AO did not examine the settlement deed of the assessee and Shri Sastry which resulted in payment of ₹ 8 lakhs to the assessee. AO also did not examine the sale deed executed by Shri Sastry in favour of third party. Letter dated 24.06.2007 placed in paper book annexed in page No.14 shows that the property was in possession of Shri S.V.Ramana Rao and the assessee intended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act ). Subsequently, the Assessing Officer (AO) received information from the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Visakhapatnam that the assessee had received the amount of ₹ 8,00,000/- towards commission from Shri S.V.S.S.R.Sastry (Shri Sastry). The said information was collected by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Visakhapatnam during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings in the case of Shri S.V.S.S.R.Sastry and passed it on the AO. The AO found that the amount of ₹ 8,00,000/- received from Shri Sastry was not declared in the return of income. Hence, the AO reopened the assessment u/s 147 and taken up the case for scrutiny and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the act accepting the income returned. Subsequently, Ld.Pr.CIT has taken up the case for revision u/s 263 and found that the assessee had purchased the vacant site of 180 sq.yds at Balayya Sastry layout from one Shri Sastry on 21.04.1999 for a consideration ₹ 30,000/- and had been enjoying the same since then and the rights over the property were vested with him till disposal of the same in the year 2008. As per the recitals of registered sale agreement exe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Sastry through registered agreement cum sale. As per the agreement, the possession of the property was given after receipt of the entire consideration of ₹ 30,000/- and the said document was registered in the office of the District Registrar, Visakhapatnam. Thus, the transaction was complete as per section 53A of Transfer of Property Act. Though the assessee stated to have paid the amount of ₹ 8 lakhs subsequently on various dates, no evidence was furnished before the Ld.Pr.CIT. The assessee s claim with regard to the expenditure for gravel filling, leveling of site and construction of wall and shed was also not accepted by the Ld.Pr.CIT in the absence of supporting evidences. Hence, the Ld.Pr.CIT held that the assessment order passed by the AO without verification of the issues is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, accordingly set aside the assessment and directed the AO to bring the entire long term capital gains arising from transfer of subject property to tax by taking the amount of ₹ 32,400/- as cost of acquisition and ₹ 8,00,000/- as sale consideration. The Ld.Pr.CIT further directed the AO to verify the correctness of asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence was produced before the AO regarding the payments made to Shri Sastry for purchase of the said land in question. The recitals of the agreement also did not support the contention of the assessee. The AO had accepted the explanation of the assessee without production of any evidence to show that the assessee has paid the amount to Shri Sastry earlier. Not even confirmation was obtained from Shri Sastry with regard to payment of ₹ 8 lakhs for purchase of the land. The assessee had entered into agreement cum possession of the property dated 21.04.1999 placed in page No.8 to 10 of the paper book as per which the total consideration was only ₹ 30,000/- and the property was given possession with a condition to register the said land whenever the assessee requested for registration. As per the said sale agreement cum possession, the transaction was complete and the sale consideration was fixed at ₹ 30,000/- which was fully paid by the assessee. Though the assessee stated to have paid ₹ 8,00,000/- subsequent to registration, there was no mention regarding the amounts payable in the sale agreement or the evidence with the assessee regarding the payment. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
