9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1645X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Ld. CIT(A) is against the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. That the CIT(A) was fully apprised by way of submissions alongwith paper book, wherein, the order of the CIT(A), dated 20.06.2018 have been filed and which have not been discussed at all by the Ld. CIT(A). 4. That the Appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off. 3. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 26/04/2013 declaring an income of Rs. 90,000/-. Thereafter the A.O. reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') on the basis of information received from ADI(Inv.)-III, Ludhiana. The A.O. during the course of assessment proceedings noticed that the assessee was co-owner of the property no. BXIX/446 measuring 601-2/3 Sq. Yards in which she had ½ share and her husband was also the owner of ½ share. He also observed that sale deed was executed in favour of Shri Kanwar Ranbir Singh Dhillon(purchaser) and total consideration @ Rs. 15,000 per Sq. Yards came to Rs. 90,30,000/- where as the assessee had shown her share at Rs. 25,00,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in civil suit no. 293 of 10/10/2001 dt. 14/08/2006 which has been incorporated in para 5.2 of the impugned order. The Ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition by observing in para 5.3 of the impugned order as under: "5.3 I have carefully considered the facts of the case and submissions of the appellant. The property at Sant Nagar question was purchased by the assessee alongwith her husband for Rs. 42 lacs on 29.10.2004. Vide agreement to sell dated 02.04.2005, the property was agreed to be sold at the rate of Rs. 15000 per Square Yard i.e. for Rs. 90,30,000/- (601 x 15,000). As per this agreement total amount of Rs. 35,00,000/- was received by the sellers till 13.08.2005. It is observed that on 23.12.2005, there was registry of the property for Rs. 25,00,000/- for 1/2 property. After already having received Rs. 35,00,000/- on account of sale of property, the registry was made only for Rs. 25,00,000/- by the parties. It is observed that on 15.10.2005 a notice for claim of damages was filed by Sh. Kanwan Ranbir Singh to the assessee and her husband and accordingly a suit was filed in court on 10.12.2005 which was dismissed on 11.03.2006. During the pendency of such suit Vi of the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... voluntarily. It is noted that the above adverse remarks of the Hon'ble Court have not been disputed by the assessee. The hon'ble court has clearly observed that during the pendency of suit the parties have agreed for purchase of property and the property was registered at much less amount as against the agreed amount and the stamp duty was evaded knowingly or voluntarily. Though Sh. Kanwar Ranbir Singh filed a suit for damages against the assessee and her husband for proposing to sell a disputed property, simultaneously a registry of the part amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- out of total Rs. 35,00,000/- paid was made, during the pendency of such suit. Though the suit filed by Sh. Kanwar Ranbir Singh for damages was dismissed at a subsequent date. These facts show that sellers and purchasers of the property have entered into the second agreement at reduced price of Rs. 55 lacs only to avoid taxes. The sale of property was agreed to between parties at Rs. 90,30,000/-. The sale of the property has been executed between the parties. The action of the assessing officer in assessing the proportionate sale consideration on the basis of total sale consideration of Rs. 90,30,000/- is up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o sell the property to another purchaser that this dispute came to light. It cannot also be denied that disputed property with imperfect title, does result in lesser price than the prevailing market rate. This is what happened in the case of the appellant, as is borne out by the various documents placed before the AO and also adduced in the appellate proceedings. The ownership of the property at the time of purchase by the appellant came in dispute because of the plaintiff, Smt. Rajinderwant Kaur filing a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against her brother who had gifted the said property to CMC vide 'gift deed' dated 26/07/2001 bearing vasika No. 5105. When this fact came to be known, the appellant and the intending purchaser entered into litigation themselves and thereafter sought to be impleaded in the suit filed by Smt. Rajinderwant Kaur, as defendant. The said effort came to naught because of the dismissal of their applications. Thereafter, the appellant and the purchaser came to terms, to effect the sale by reducing the sale price to make up for the litigation cost in future. In any case, it cannot be denied that an encumbered property fetches a lesser p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner of Income Tax Vs. Leader Valves Ltd. (P&H) (supra) held as under: "that keeping in view the principle of consistency, the Revenue could not be permitted to raise an issue in isolation only for one year in the case of one assessee, while accepting the findings on the same issue in the case of other assessees and for other years in the case of the assessee." 13. Therefore by keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the aforesaid referred to cases, I am of the view that the Department ought to have maintained consistency and that the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified particularly when an identical addition made in the hands of the co-owner of the same property i.e; Husband of the assessee, has been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) and the said order was not challenged before the higher Forum. In view of the above the addition made by the A.O. and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is deleted. 11. In ITA No. 41/Chd/2019 for the Assessment Year 2008-09, the facts are similar as were in ITA No. 40/Chd/2019 for the Assessment Year 2006-07, the only difference is in the amount involved, therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
