S.Q.NASREEN QUADRI,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-13(3), HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's contention that her share in the property should be determined as per Muslim Personal Law. The assessee, being the granddaughter of the original owner, is entitled to a share calculated according to this law. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to consider the certificate issued by the Government Qazi of Warangal District for the computation of the assessee's share. Regarding the application of Section 50C, the assessee's counsel stated there was no objection. Consequently, the ground related to Section 50C was treated as not pressed. The Tribunal did not make any specific findings or directions regarding the exemption claim under Section 54F, as this was not a point of contention in the final arguments presented to the ITAT.
What were the facts?
The assessee, an individual, along with 25 others, sold landed property for Rs. 1,11,30,000. The Sub-Registrar valued the property at Rs. 1,25,88,825. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued a notice u/s. 148 for capital gains tax, adopting the value u/s. 50C. The AO considered the assessee's share to be 1/26th of the sale consideration, amounting to Rs. 3,14,360. The assessee claimed her share was 0.7378% (Rs. 46,291) as per Islamic Sharia (Muslim Personal Law), supported by a certificate from the Government Qazi. The AO disallowed the exemption u/s. 54F for not furnishing proof of deposit of consideration/capital gains in a bank. The CIT(A) confirmed the 1/26th share but directed the AO to verify the s. 54F exemption claim. The assessee appealed to the ITAT.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the assessee's share in the ancestral property is to be calculated as 1/26th of the total consideration or as per Muslim Personal Law (0.7378%). This issue turns on the interpretation of inheritance laws in relation to Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee argued that as per Muslim Personal Law, her share as a granddaughter should be calculated based on specific inheritance rules, citing a certificate from the Government Qazi. The revenue, through the DR, supported the orders of the lower authorities, implying agreement with the 1/26th share calculation. 2. Whether the provisions of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were correctly applied. The assessee's grounds of appeal suggest a challenge to the application of Section 50C, but the assessee's counsel later stated there was no objection to its application. The revenue did not present specific arguments on this point, but supported the lower authorities' orders.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “SMC”, HYDERABAD
Before: SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–4, Hyderabad, dated 28-11-2017 for the AY.2008-09.
Brief facts of the case are that, assessee, an individual, along with 25 others, sold landed property in Survey Nos.102 to 109, 120 to 123, 126 to 142, 144 to 154 and 161 vide Document No.9843/07, dt.10-09-2007 consisting of Acres 74.20 equivalent to 2968 guntas situated at Thimmapur Village, Hanamkonda Revenue Mandal and Survey Nos.281 and 282 of Ursu Village of Warangal (RM) for a consideration of Rs.1,11,30,000/-, whereas the property was valued by the Sub-Registrar at Rs.1,25,88,825/- on which stamp duty and registration charges were paid. The Assessing Officer (AO)
:- 2 -: ITA No. 129/Hyd/2018
therefore issued a notice u/s.148 of the Income Tax Act [Act] to the assessee on 16-03-2015 to bring the capital gains to tax. He adopted the value u/s.50C of the Act and observed that assessee is eligible for 1/26th share of the sale consideration. Assessee claimed that as per the Islamic Sharia (Muslim Personal Law), her share of eligibility is @ 0.7378%, which works out to Rs.46,291/- and filed the copy of the certificate issued by Government Qazi of Warangal District in support of her contention. AO, however, did not accept the assessee’s contention and treated the 1/26th of the consideration as assessee’s share, i.e., Rs.3,14,360/-. Thereafter, he proceeded to consider assessee’s claim of exemption u/s.54F of the Act. Assessee had claimed that the said amount was used for construction of residential house during the period i.e., Financial Years 2008-09 to 2010-11. The AO, however, observed that the assessee has not furnished any proof that the consideration/capital gains has been deposited in any bank/institution. He therefore disallowed the claim of exemption u/s.54F of the Act.
2.1. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), wo confirmed the assessee’s share to be 1/26th of the total consideration received. However, she directed the AO to verify the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s.54F of the Act. Thus, the appeal was partly allowed. Against the said order of CIT(A), the assessee is in second appeal before the ITAT, raising the following Grounds:
:- 3 -: ITA No. 129/Hyd/2018
“1. The order of the learned commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is erroneous to the extent it is prejudicial to the appellant. 2. The learned commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Office in holding that the share of the appellant in the ancestral property inherited by her is 1/26th of 1,25,88,825 and the amount of capital gain worked out by the Assessing Officer is in order.
The learned commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing officer in applying the provisions of sec.50C of the I.T.Act.
The learned commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have observed that the appellant is governed by Muslim personal law and she is entitled for 0.7378% share in the property.
Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing”.
At the outset, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee has drawn my attention to the Family Tree at Pgs.3 to 6 of the Paper Book, filed by the assessee, according to which, the assessee is the grand-daughter of the original owner i.e., Shri Syed Mohiuddin Pasha Quadri, whose land was sold. He therefore submitted that as per the Muslim Personal Law, ladies get only half of the share which a male shareholder would get and therefore, the assessee’s share has to be calculated as per the Muslim Personal Law and submitted that both the AO as well as the CIT(A) have failed to consider this fact.
Ld.DR, however, supported the orders of authorities below.
Having regard to the rival contentions and material on record, I agree with the contention of Ld.Counsel for the
:- 4 -: ITA No. 129/Hyd/2018
assessee that as far as the assessee’s share in the property is concerned, it is to be arrived at as per the Muslim Personal Law. Assessee is the grand-daughter of the original owner of the land and therefore, her share as per the Muslim Personal Law alone has to be taken into consideration. Assessee has filed the certificate issued by Government Qazi of Warangal District and the same should be considered for computation of share of the assessee. I direct the AO accordingly. Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee does not have any objection to application of provisions of Section 50C of the Act is considered. Therefore, the ground on this issue i.e., Ground No.3, is rejected, as not pressed. Accordingly, the appeal of assessee is treated as partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 16th August, 2019
Sd/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated 16th August, 2019 TNMM
:- 5 -: ITA No. 129/Hyd/2018
Copy to :
S.Q.Nasreen Quadri, Plot No.39, Manovikas Nagar, Opp: NIHM, Bowenpally, Secunderabad. 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward-13(3), Hyderabad.
CIT(Appeals)-4, Hyderabad.
Pr.CIT-4, Hyderabad.
D.R. ITAT, Hyderabad.
Guard File.
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- Anisha Busa vs. Sibar Institute Of Dental SciencesAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026