Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN
आयकर अपील सं./ "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Murugesan Balakrishnan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.1/89, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Non-Corporate Ward – 8(5), Kattupakkam, Chennai – 600 056. Chennai – 34. PAN: BIKPB 0222N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri G. Ramakrishnan, Shri Sanjiv Kumar Shah, CA ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar,Addl.CIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 19.08.2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of : 15.11.2019 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R PER SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The assessee filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Chennai in dated 27.08.2018 for the assessment year 2015-16. :- 2 -:
Shri Murugesan Balakrishnan, the assessee filed return claiming Rs.1,28,48,750/- as an exempt income. During the course of the assessment, the assessee claimed that his father inherited 3 acres 68 cents of land. After his death, the assessee’s mother settled the property among the assessee, his brothers and one sister, of which 93 cents was settled on him. He has entered into an agreement of sale for the portion of the land settled on him i.e., 93 cents with M/s. Ashok Nandavanam Properties Pvt. Ltd., for Rs.6,51,00,000/- which was registered vide Doc.No.16099/2013 dated 25.11.2013 and No.11541/2014 and he received Rs.4,92,50,000/- till the end of the year relevant to this assessment year, which was distributed to the assessee, his wife, daughter and son at Rs.123.49 lakhs, each. The assessee pleaded that being a HUF property, his share of sale consideration received at Rs.123.49 lakhs is claimed as an exempt income U/s.47(1). The Assessing Officer found from the registered sale agreement dated 25.11.2013, the GPA registered in Doc.No.11541/2014 dated 10.07.2014 and from the copy of patta and chitta adangal issued by the Tahsildhar of Alandur Taluk, etc that the assessee is an absolute owner of the land and it was held in his :- 3 -: individual capacity. Therefore, the Assessing Officer held that the impugned transfer is not a total or partial partition of HUF, it is a sale on the first instance to an outsider. He has also held that the assessee has not let any evidence on record to show that Shri Murugesan Balakrishnan, HUF ever existed with the assessee as kartha. Neither the sale agreement nor the General Power of Attorney (GPA) was executed with the status of HUF. Further, the assessee’s claim of exemption in return of income in the status of individual itself proved that there is no HUF in the assessee’s name and accordingly the Assessing Officer held that the impugned property is assessee’s individual property and refused the exemption claim U/s.47(1). Thereafter, the assessee pleaded to assess the receipt of actual consideration of Rs.4,92,50,000/- alone instead of the agreed consideration of Rs.6.51 crore. In this regard, the Assessing Officer examined this issue with M/s. Ashok Nandavanam Properties Pvt. Ltd., and found from their accounts, etc., that the sale consideration shown is Rs.6.51 crores, the assessee handed over possession and received Rs.4,92,50,000/- and the balance sum of Rs.2,51,12,290/- is shown as a liability payable by them to the assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer brought to tax the sale consideration of Rs.6.5 crores. The :- 4 -:
Assessing Officer also held that the assessee has not furnished the details of investment, if any, for the deduction claimed U/s.54 inspite of his pre-assessment notice dated 14.12.2017 and hence did allow the deduction claimed by the assessee U/s.54. Aggrieved the assessee, filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A), inter-alia, confirmed the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer.
2.1 With respect to assessee’s claim on the cost of acquisition / FMV as at 01.04.1981, indexed cost of acquisition with cost inflation index on the FMV as on 01.04.1981 to the date of sale along with cost of improvement, the ld.CIT(A) held that the assessee did not bring any material on record to establish that the property was acquired by the previous owner before 01.04.1981. With respect to assessee’s claim U/s.54, the ld.CIT(A) held that the assessee did not claim such deduction either in the return nor during the assessment proceedings. The assessee also did not bring any material in support of exemption during the appeal proceedings and hence the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved against that order, the assessee filed this appeal. :- 5 -:
The ld.AR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) failed to consider that the transaction was by way of agreement for sale and the assessee has not given PoA for sale of entire extent of land but only to the extent for which the possession was handed over or the consideration received. He invited our attention to the clause 9 in page 5 of the copy of agreement for sale to prove that “no physical possession of schedule property is handed over”. Therefore, the ld.AR pleaded that sale can be considered to the extent of receipt of sale consideration only. In support, the ld.AR invited our attention to the Paper-book wherein the summary of sale deed executed for land given on PoA and the statement of account of the buyer, agreement of sale entered with the buyer, consideration received in the form of land, Power of Attorney executed in the name of the buyer, proof for investment made in residential property, the particulars of Power of Attorney document No. & date, total extent of land conveyed as per Power of Attorney document, Value conveyed in Power of Attorney document as per sale agreement, Sale deed document no. executed by power agent, value as per sale deed, value as per sale deed for Balakrishnan were placed and submitted that the ld.CIT(A) also grossly erred in not allowing the claim made U/s.54EC and 54F and erred in not adopting the correct :- 6 -:
Cost of Acquisition as per provisions of law and hence the ld.AR pleaded to allow the appeal. Per contra, the ld.DR supported the orders of the lower authorities.
We heard the rival submissions and gone through the material. It is clear from the above, the sale deed were executed on various dates from 09.06.2014 to 21.01.2015. From the material furnished by the assessee, it is seen that the Assessing Officer has not examined various aspects of the taxation in its proper perspective. Therefore, we deem it fit to remit this issue back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Balbir Singh Maini, 398 ITR 531 (SC), the capital gains arising from the sale of immovable property can be assessed in the year in which the registration of the property is executed. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to examine afresh and assess the capital gains in the year in which the registration was executed. The assessee shall lay all materials in support of his contention before the Assessing Officer and comply with the requirements of the Assessing Officer in accordance with law. The Assessing Officer is also free to conduct appropriate enquiry as deemed fit, however, he shall furnish :- 7 -: due opportunity to the assessee on the materials etc., to be used against the assessee and on due consideration of the assessee’s clarification / explanation shall pass the order in accordance with law.
4.1 Since the substantial issue is remitted back, supra, the other issues raised by the assessee, viz., deduction claimed U/s.54F, adoption of correct cost of acquisition, etc., are also remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination and due consideration on the above lines.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Court on 15th November, 2019 in Chennai. (धु"ु" आर एल रेड़्डी) ( एस जयरामन ) (Duvvuru R.L Reddy) (S. Jayaraman) "ाियक सद"/Judicial Member लेखा सद" /Accountant Member चे"ई/Chennai, िदनांक/Dated 15th November, 2019 RSR :- 8 -: