LATE SMT. KRISHNA KOTHARI THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SANJAY C. KOTHARI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(1)(3), MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that Section 50C can only be invoked when a transfer of property has taken place. Since the deceased assessee had not transferred the flat, the addition of Short Term Capital Gains was unjustified.
What were the facts?
The assessee's return of income was processed, and during scrutiny, the Assessing Officer (AO) noted advances for a property and an unsecured loan. The assessee had taken possession of a flat in 2007 but continued to show it as an advance in the balance sheet.
What were the issues?
Whether Section 50C of the Income Tax Act can be invoked when there has been no actual transfer of property, and if the addition of Short Term Capital Gains is justified in such a scenario.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE S/SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JM), & RAJESH KUMAR,(AM)
Per RAJESH KUMAR, Accountant Member:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee and it is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-25, Mumbai dated 22.10.2013 pertaining to A.Y.2008- 09.
The issue raised in the grounds of appeal
no.3 is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.23,83,141/- under the head Short Term Capital Gains (STCG) on the transfer of residential flat by the ld. CIT(A) by holding that the AO without appreciating the fact that the flat has not actually been transferred during the year and under the provisions of section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the Act), therefore, the invocation of the provisions of section 50C is not justified at all.
3. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed his return of income on 29.9.2008 declaring total income of Rs.5,97,600/- which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued u/s 143(2) on 5.8.2009 and u/s 142(1) dated 5.4.2010 were duly issued and served upon the assessee. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings found from the balancesheet for the assessment yer 2007-08 that a sum of Rs.3,38,31,050/- was appearing as advance for property being Gundecha Garden and also received unsecured loan of Rs.33,66,631/- from Shri Sanjay Kothari which was also shown in the balancesheet. The assessee got the possession of the said flat on 7.2.2007 and which means the assessee got right in the said property. However, the assessee continued to show the advances of property in the balanesheet as on 31.3.2007 which was wrong as the assessee should have shown in the balancesheet the purchase of lat and instead.
4. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed before us including the orders of authorities below. On perusal of the page 139 of the paper book reveals that Smt Krishna Kothari and Sanjay Kothari were co-owners of the flat in Gundecha Gardens Co- op.Soc Ltd as evidenced by a certificated dated 10.6.2008 bearing share certificate no.216, Member’s registration No.D-30. The assessee died on 13.9.2009 as evidenced by the death certificate dated 22.12.2010 issued by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumber, which is placed at page 141 of the paper book. We also note from page No.125 of the paper book which is a copy of leter addressed to the Hon’rary Secretary of the Society for deletion of name of original (deceased) member informing the society that one of the co-owner Smt.Krishna Kothari expired on 13.9.2009 requesting the society to insert the name of Mrs.Meenakshi Sanjay Kothari as the second co-owner in the record of the society in place of the deceased co-owner. We have also perused the pages 132,134 and 138 which comprises of indemnity bond filed by Mrs.Meenakshi Sanjay Kothari and undertaking of Mrs.Meenakshi Sanjay Kothari, affidavit at page 136 to 138 which is joint affidavit of Shri Sanjay C Kothari, Son of Mrs.Krishna Kothari, Smt. Sangita Dinesh Mohta, Daughte, Mrs. Surekhas Sanjay Mimani, daughter and Mrs.Shalini Girdhri Chandak, daughter and Mrs.Meenakshi Sanjay Kothari, daughter in law requesting the society that all legal heirs have left their interest as well claim in the shares certificate no.216 as well as residential flat no.1402 in the building of the society except Shri Sanjay C Kothari who is already holding joint ownership along with the deceased joint owner and such his membership should be continued along with his wife. Taking into account all the facts and documents filed on record, we find that the deceased assessee has not transferred the flat in favour of her son Sanjay C
More judgments on Section 50C
- M N S Barium Salts, Kadapa vs ITO, Ward-1, KadapaITA 2412/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Sawalchand Chunilal Bafna HUF, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer-16(1)(1), MumbaiITA 7492/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2011-12
- Jagdishbhai Vasharambhai Italiya, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 150/AHD/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Rohini Ramhari Bhadale, Pune vs Assessing Officer Ward 2(2) Pune, PuneITA 2767/PUN/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Sweta Somani, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 44(2), KolkataITA 1656/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026