TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 1091X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oupled with part performance of the contract of the nature referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In the instant case, it is apparent that on 27/12/2003 the assessee had received the part consideration of ₹ 5 lakhs and the possession of the property was also handed over as evident from the bank statement of the assessee and the unregistered notarized sale deed. Assessee would be exigible towards capital gain tax only for the AY 2004-05 and not for the relevant AY 2007-08. It is also pertinent to mention that just because capital gain accrued to the assessee has escaped tax in the AY 2004-05, the same cannot be brought to tax subsequently in the AY 2007-08 as per the provisions of the Act. Therefore, he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l house admeasuring 137 sq yds bearing No. 1-10-104/27, situated at Allamothota Bavi, Begumpet, Secunderabad vide Registered Sale deed No.2384/2006 dated 20/11/2006 for a sale consideration of ₹ 5 lakhs as against the fair market value of the property of ₹ 16,72,000/-. Therefore, the case was taken up for scrutiny. 4. On perusing the facts of the case and submission of both the parties I do not find any fault with the Ld.AO for re-opening of the assessment after four years because fresh materials has surfaced during the relevant assessment year that the assessee had executed a sale deed for sale of his immovable property and had not declared the same in his return of income. Hence the ground raised by the assessee on this cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion received by the assessee during the assessment year 2004-05. However, the Ld. AO opined that since the assessee had not declared capital gain from the sale of the property for the AY 2004-05 the same has to be brought to tax for the relevant AY 2007-08. He further opined that in the case of the assessee the provisions of section 50C of the Act will not be applicable. Accordingly, the Ld. AO computed the LTCG in the hands of the assessee at ₹ 4,14,676/- vide his order dated 23/3/2015. 6. The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT (A). The Ld. CIT (A) after examining the issue was of the view that the transfer of the property has taken place during the financial year 2006-07 and therefore in the case of the assessee prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate of possession was specified as 20/11/2006. (v) In the Registered Sale Deed there is no mention of the unregistered Notarized sale deed dated 23/1/2004. (vi) There are many discrepancies in the unregistered Notarized sale deed dated 23/1/2004 with respect to the particulars of the property and the description of the adjoining properties. (vii) In the notarized sale deed the extent of land sold was mentioned as 80 sq yds while as in the sale deed dated 20/11/2006 the extent of land sold was stated as 137 sq yds. This shows that additional extent of land was sold vide the sale deed executed on 20/11/2006. (viii) The notarized agreement to sale is not equivalent to a registered sale deed. As per Transfer of Property Act a regist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notarized sale deed were corrected while registering the sale deed with the SRO. The Ld. AR also pointed out to the bank statement enclosed in page no.5 of the paper book to establish the fact that the assessee has received ₹ 5 lakhs on 27/12/2003 from the vendee. It was further explained that as the assessee and Smt. Arutla Malathi had maintained their savings bank account in the same bank and the same branch therefore cheque deposited in the bank was instantly credited to the assessee s account. The Ld. AR thereafter argued stating that since the transfer of the property had taken place on 27/12/2003 the assessee is assessable to capital gain tax only for the AY 2004-05 and not in the relevant AY 2007-08. It was therefore pleaded t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... possession of the property was also handed over as evident from the bank statement of the assessee and the unregistered notarized sale deed. Hence, the assessee would be exigible towards capital gain tax only for the AY 2004-05 and not for the relevant AY 2007-08. It is also pertinent to mention that just because capital gain accrued to the assessee has escaped tax in the AY 2004-05, the same cannot be brought to tax subsequently in the AY 2007-08 as per the provisions of the Act. therefore, I hereby set aside the order of the Ld. CIT (A) and further direct the Ld. AO to delete the addition made and enhanced in the hands of the assessee towards LTCG. Accordingly the second ground raised by the assessee is held in his favour. 10. Before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
