9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 681X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4/1 (Plot No.9) Turab Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad for a consideration of Rs.23,50,000/- as per the sale deed document No.3347/2008 registered with Sub-Registrar, Chikkadapally, Hyderabad during the financial year 2008-09 relevant to the A.Y 2009-10. Information was received that the Sub Registrar, Chikkadapply has valued the said property at Rs.34,16,000/- and therefore, there was variation between the market value as determined by the Sub-Registrar and as reflected in the Registration Document pertaining to the said property. The Assessing Officer held that provisions of section 50C are clearly applicable since the PAN No. of the assessee was not available and it was not possible to ascertain as to whether the assessee has declared the capital gains on the above transaction adopting fair market value of the property as determined by the Sub Registrar. The Assessing Officer, therefore, after recording the reasons, reopened the assessment and issued notice u/s 148 on 24.3.2016. Since there was no response to the said notice, the Assessing Officer deputed the Inspector of his charge, who also served notice on the assessee in the presence of two witnesses. Again, there was no response ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... registered sale, as per Government rules, has been on 13.10.2008. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer is correct in computing the land in question as Short Term capital gains. I uphold the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Ground Dismissed 6. Ground No.2 : Deduction u/s.54 6.1 Before me, the appellant submitted that after the sale of the property, the appellant submitted he bought a residential property vide Agreement of Sale cum General power of Attorney in the name of Smt. Shamim Begum (Wife of appellant) and Mohammed Saleem vide document No.0605-2009 dated 13.03.2009 from Sri Kaleri Satish Kumar situated at No.2-2-187/1, 2-2-188, 2-2-189 and 2- 2-189/A admeasuring 185.00 sq. yds at Bhorath Nager, Amberpet, A.P. for a consideration of Rs.49,90,000/-. The appellant submitted that after the sale of the above property. The appellant bought a residential property'! on 13.03.2009 hence, he is eligible for deduction u/5.54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6.2 The submissions of the appellant have been carefully considered. The appellant did not file ownership rights of the property in question. The sale has been made as GPA holder and not as 'owner'. Hence t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brother who returned to India for good. 5. The action of the Commissioner of' Income Tax (Appeal's refusal to allow the transaction of sale by the appellant as Long Term Capital Gain which is worked out admitting Stamp Duty Value as Deemed Consideration for the purpose ofSec.48 of the I.T. Act., has resulted in denial of relief claimed by the Appellant U/S .54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the Gain is invested in the Purchase of another Residential House. 6. Any other Grounds at the time of' hearing." 5. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment u/s 144 of the I.T. Act. Referring to page No.7 of the Paper Book, he drew the attention of the Bench to the agreement of sale executed on 5.10.200 for a consideration of Rs.3,70,000/-. Referring to page No.74 of the Paper Book, he drew the attention of the Bench to the copy of the return filed for the A.Y 2006-07 on 31.3.2007 wherein the rental income from the said property has been duly disclosed. He submitted that the tax challan of Rs.1286/- was paid on 27.3.2007 copy of which is placed in page No. 79 of the Paper Book. Similarly for the A.Y 2005-06, the return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dingly submitted that the order of the learned CIT (A) be upheld. 8. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and learned CIT (A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us by both sides. We find the assessee in the instant case, had sold an immovable property for a consideration of Rs.23,50,000/- and the share of the assessee in the said property is 50%. The stamp valuation authority had valued the property at Rs. 34,16,000/-. According to the assessee he had entered into an agreement for sale in the year 2000 and had paid full consideration and was in possession of the property and therefore, when the property was sold, the gain that arose from the sale of the property was LTCG and the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 54 of the I.T. Act. However according to the Assessing Officer, the property was purchased on 30.06.2006 and the assessee was in possession of the property for less than 3 years and therefore, the assessee is not eligible to claim LTCG. We find the learned CIT (A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, the reasons of which have already been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
