TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 860X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal owners. Therefore, the capital gains arising out of the transfer occurred on 04.01.2011 should be charged in the hands of the assessee only. AO as well as the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly taxed the capital gains in the hands of the assessee after allowing deduction of indexed cost of acquisition. Estimation of the value of the impugned property as per fair market value - Special provision for full value of consideration in certain cases u/s 50C - HELD THAT:- As per sale agreement cum GPA executed on 04.04.2007, the assessee purchased the property for Rs.5,00,000/- and sold the property for Rs.17,00,000/-. But as per the sale deed, the stamp duty value of the property is Rs.20,00,000/-. Therefore, as per section 50C of the Act, the AO has correctly computed the capital gains against the sale consideration of Rs.20,00,000/- after allowing indexed cost of acquisition at Rs.6,54,090/- and arrived at the long term capital gains. Assessee appeal dismissed. - I.T.A.No.78/Viz/2021 - - - Dated:- 17-3-2023 - Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon ble Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri M.Madhusudan, AR For the Respondent : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR ORDER PER SHR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m GPA No. 3169/2007, dated 04.04.2007, the Ld.CIT(A) ought not have held that there is a DEEMED TRANSFER within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) of the IT Act, 1961 and in the context of WELL SETTLED LAW, the impugned assessment order dated 22.11.2018 may be NONEST IN LAW AND HENCE THE SAME MAY BE LIABLE TO BE ANNULLED. 3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case vis-a-vis the enacted law and judge made law, the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have noticed that the assessee executed the Registered Conveyance Deed dated 04.01.2011 only in the status of GPA HOLDER and hence the assessment order dated 22.11.2018 may be void ab initio. 4. That even otherwise and without PREJUDICE to the legal GROUNDS enunciated supra, the Ld.CIT(A) ought not have CONFIRMED THE SUBSTITUTION OF GUIDELINE VALUE of Rs.20,00,000/- ignoring the mandatory provisions contained in 1st and 2nd PROVISO appended to Section 50C of the Act which hold RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT as per the decided law. 5. For these reasons and other reasons which may be advanced at the time of hearing of the appeal, it is requested that the impugned assessment order dated 22.11.2018 may be ORDERED TO BE ANNULLED 5. Ground No.1 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this ground. 8. I have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The main contention of the assessee is that he is only the GPA holder, therefore, his status is only an agent and the property was not delivered to him on 04.04.2007. Further contention of the assessee is that the registered conveyance deed was executed by him on 04.01.2011 on behalf of the landlords Sri Suresh Babu and Vasanthi in the name of the buyer, Shri K.Anil Kumar. Further contention of the assessee is that the consideration of Rs.17,00,000/- was received by the assessee on behalf of the owners. Hence, accountability about the sale by the conveyance deed dated 04.01.2011 cannot be fixed on the assessee to charge capital gains against him and the same has to be operated against the original landlords only. I have perused the recitals mentioned in the translated copy of sale agreement cum GPA dated 04.04.2007 and sale deed executed on 04.01.2011, filed by the assessee. The recitals as mentioned in the last paragraph of page No.3 of the sale agreement cum GPA dated 04.04.2007 are as under : The schedule property sold to you as stated supra, and delivered to your possession, excepti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence to establish that he has repaid the amount to the original owners. Therefore, the capital gains arising out of the transfer occurred on 04.01.2011 should be charged in the hands of the assessee only. Therefore, the AO as well as the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly taxed the capital gains in the hands of the assessee after allowing deduction of indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.6,54,090/-. Hence, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. 9. Ground No.4 is related to estimation of the value of the impugned property as per fair market value at Rs.20,00,000/-. The Ld.AR submitted that the substitution of Rs.20,00,000/- representing the FMV as on the date of execution of the regular conveyance deed dated 04.01.2011 in the place of recorded consideration of Rs.17,00,000/- may not be sustainable in law. He pleaded to set aside the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and allow the appeal of the assessee. 10. Per contra, the Ld.DR relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and pleaded to uphold the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the assessee. 11. I have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. On this aspect, as per sale agreement cum GPA ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection (1), where (a) the assessee claims before any Assessing Officer that the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority under sub-section (1) exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer; (b) the value so adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority under sub-section (1) has not been disputed in any appeal or revision or no reference has been made before any other authority, court or the High Court, the Assessing Officer may refer the valuation of the capital asset to a Valuation Officer and where any such reference is made, the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of section 16A, clause (i) of sub-section (1) and sub-sections (6) and (7) of section 23A, sub-section (5) of section 24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that Act. Explanation 1. For the purposes of this section, Valuation Officer shall have the same meaning as in clause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
