Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 173/JP/2015
per sale deed dated 27.10.2006. Further even the development agreement dated 06.08.2002 was made with all together different party. Therefore the transaction of sale dated 27.10.2006, was independent sale transaction though in the documents it is reflected in a manner to be showing in continuance to agreement dated 27.09.1992. Another important point to be taken into consideration is that why a person will transfer or sale a property for Rs. 18 Lacs on the rate applicable in AY 1993-94 to a all together different purchaser party when the prevailing market rate of the property were so high. The corroborative facts also indicate that the actual sale consideration may have been for Rs. 2.5 Crores or more but to avoid the tax liability it was shown for Rs. 2.50 Lacs, that too in continuance to earlier agreement. Keeping in view these facts it is held that on sale of the property as per sale deed dated 27.10.2006, the AO has rightly taxed assessee’s share as long term capital gain. Accordingly the addition made by the AO is confirmed.”
We have heard both the sides and considered the case laws
relied upon. We have also considered the written submissions of the ld
AR. After considering all these, we are of the view that the capital gain
by invoking the provisions of Section 50C of the Act are rightly taxed in
the year under consideration. The assessee has never given possession
of the land in earlier years. There was no execution of the sale deed in
the earlier years. The agreement dated 27/09/1992 was cancelled. The
development agreement dated 06/8/2002 was not with the person
which whom the sale was executed on 27/10/2006. The facts on
ITA 173 /JP/2015_ 13 Mahesh Matadin Verma Vs ITO record also suggest that such agreement in 1992 and 2002 are simply
to avoid the payment of various taxes on transfer of property.
Considering all these aspects of the matter, we confirm the order of the
ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, this ground of assessee’s appeal is
dismissed.
In the ground No. 3 of the appeal, the issue raised has no merit
wherein it is claimed that the assessee has not inherited the property
but this claim is contrary to the facts of the case after the death of the
mother of the assessee. The property got transferred in the name of
the assessee as legal heir and the assessee is one of the executor of
the sale deed alongwith other legal heirs. Therefore, this ground is also
not supported by the facts on record. Hence, this ground of appeal is
dismissed.
Grounds No. 4 and 5 of the appeal are general in nature and
does not require any adjudication.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 17/05/2018.
Sd/- Sd/- ¼fot; iky jko fot; iky jko fot; iky jko½ fot; iky jko ¼Hkkxpan Hkkxpan Hkkxpan½ ½ ½ ½ Hkkxpan (VIJAY PAL RAO) (BHAGCHAND) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 17th May, 2018.
ITA 173 /JP/2015_ 14 Mahesh Matadin Verma Vs ITO *Ranjan आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Mahesh Matadin Verma, Jhunjhunu. 1. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward-1, Jhunjhunu. 2. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A) 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 173/JP/2015) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत