Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad DB-B‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.
(िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Late Shri Byrraju Vs. Income Tax Officer Somaraju Rep by LR Ward 11 (1) Byrraju Pratap Raju Hyderabad Hyderabad PAN:ECXPB6437D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा��रती �ारा/Assessee by: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocarte राज� व �ारा/Revenue by:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 18/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31/07/2025 आदेश/ORDER
Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 09/08/2024 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, relating to A.Y.2011-12.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the learned CIT (A) is erroneous both on facts and in law;
2. The learned CIT (A) erred in holding that the appellate order was already passed by another CIT (A) and that the matter was pending before the High Court;
3 The learned CIT (A) ought to have seen that no such order was passed by any other CIT (A) against the appeal preferred by the appellant and the appeal ought to have been decided on merits by the CIT(A); 4. The learned CIT (A) ought to have considered the following grounds. a) The initiation of proceedings u/s 148 by issue of notice on 26.03.2018 to Sri Bairaju Somaraju is invalid as Sri Bairaju Somaraju passed away on 31.10.2009; b) The learned CIT (A) ought to have held that the notices u/s 142(1) were issued to Sri Bairaju Somaraju during April, 2018 and thereafter which are not valid as they were issued to a dead person; c) The Assessing Officer is not justified in passing an order on Sri Bairaju Somaraju, holding Sri Bairaju Prattap Raju and Sri Bairaju Rama Raju as legal heirs without issuing any further notice to the legal heirs d) The learned CIT (A) ought to have held that no capital gain arose to Sri Bairaju Somaraju under the facts and circumstances of the case; e) The learned CIT (A) ought to have found that no transfer took place during the year under consideration as the Transfer Deed i.e. the Sale Deed was originally executed on 13.10.2008 and was presented to the Sub Registrar; registration took place during 2010 vide Doc.No.5239/2010; the said registration would take effect with effect from 13.10.2008 i.e. the date on which the document was presented before the Sub Registrar; f) The learned CIT (A) ought to have considered the fact that no transfer took place during the financial year 2010-11 and, therefore, is not assessable for the assessment year 2011-12; g) The learned CIT (A) ought to have seen that the transfer document dated 13.10.2008 was effected to correct the title over the property; h) The learned CIT (A) ought to have seen that there was an Irrevocable General Power of Attorney in favour of Sri MSK Subba Raju, son of Sri M.V.Suryanarayana Raju, the said GPA holders paid the consideration to the land owners; they could not transfer the property to themselves and, therefore, the document was executed
Page 2 of 8 on 27.09.2008 transferring the property to their nominees and was registered on 13.10.2008; i) The learned CIT (A) ought to have held that there was no transfer and no such transfer took place during the year under consideration; j) The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have held that the provisions of Sec.50C should not have been applied by the Assessing officer.
4. The learned CIT (A) erred in deciding the appeal without properly examining the submissions made alongwith Form No.35; 5. Any other ground/grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing;”.
The learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee Byrraju Soma Raju expired on 29/10/2009, however, he sold the land situated at Survey No.25/1/0 admeasuring 2 acres and 13 guntas out of 3 acres and 23 guntas vide sale deed dated 13/10/2008 for a consideration of Rs.1,39,50,000/-. The sale deed was presented before the Sub Registrar for registreation on 13/10/2008. However, the buyer disputed the stamp duty valuation and finally the sale deed was registered on 11/01/2010. He has further contended that the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 on 26/03/2018 in the name of the diseased assessee and therefore, the said notice is invalid and liable to be quashed. Thus, the learned AR has submitted that once the sale deed was executed and presented before the Sub Registrar on 13/10/2008, then due to some stamp duty valuation dispute raised by the buyer which was resulved only on 30/11/2009 and then it was registered on 24/06/2010 would not change the date of transfer being 13/10/2008. Thus, he has submitted that the assessment made by the Assessing
Page 3 of 8 Officer in the hand of the diseased assessee for the A.Y 2011-12 is not sustainable and liable to be quashed.
On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that the Assessing Officer has framed the assessment by bringing the legal heirs with the assessee on record and therefore, there is no infirmity in the order of the Assessing Officer, once he has already brought the legal heirs on record. He has relied upon the impugned order of the Assessing Officer. He has further submitted that the learned CIT (A) has not decided the appeal of the assessee but the same is dismissed by treating that it has already been disposed off. However, the learned DR has not disputed the fact that there is some misunderstanding on the part of the learned CIT (A) while dismissing the appeal of the assessee and not deciding the same on merits.
We have considered the rival contentions as well as the relevant material available on record. At the outset, we note that the sale deed in question was executed by Shri Byrraju Soma Raju on 13/10/2008 and was also presented before the Sub Registrat as evident from the sale deed itself backside stamping and signing of the Sub Registrar as under:
5.1 Therefore, there is no dispute about the fact that the sale deed was presented for registration on 13/10/2008. However, due to some stamp duty evaluation dispute, the matter was taken up for the determination of the valuation of the land in question and finally vide certificate dated 24/06/2010, the stamp
Page 4 of 8 duty valuation was determined by the competent authority and then the sale deed was registered on the same day i.e. 24/06/2010 which is evident from the certificate of the authority as part of the sale document as under:
Page 5 of 8 5.2 The Assessing Officer has assessed the Long Term Capital Gains as per the provisions of section 50C of the Act. The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the learned CIT (A). However, the learned CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee as under:
Page 6 of 8 5.3 Thus, the learned CIT (A) has not decided the appeal of the assessee on merits. The assessee has raised various grounds including the legal ground challenging the validity of the notice
Page 7 of 8 issued u/s 148 of the Act. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case,and in the interest of justice, the impugned order of the learned CIT (A) is set aside and the matter is remanded to the record of the learned CIT (A) for deciding the same afresh on merits.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.