TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Family settlement invalidates capital gain addition under Section 50C</h1> <h3>Shri Ramesh Verma, Prop. M/s Jagdambey Roadlines Versus The DCIT, Yamuna Nagar</h3> Shri Ramesh Verma, Prop. M/s Jagdambey Roadlines Versus The DCIT, Yamuna Nagar - TMI Issues Involved:1. Applicability of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act.2. Determination of the assessment year for capital gains.3. Validity of the addition of Rs. 55,03,319/- as income from capital gain.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act:The primary issue in this case was whether the provisions of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act were applicable. The assessee argued that Section 50C did not apply since no Sale Deed was registered for the property in question. The property was transferred through an oral family settlement confirmed by a Civil Court, and no consideration was assessed by the Stamp Valuation Authority. The Tribunal referred to the amendment in Section 50C, which added the word 'assessable' effective from 01.10.2009, and concluded that since the amendment was not applicable to the assessment year 2009-10, Section 50C could not be invoked. The Tribunal cited the case of CIT V R.Sugantha Ravindran by the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the ITAT Jodhpur in Navneet Kumar Thakkar Vs ITO, which supported the view that Section 50C does not apply to unregistered agreements or oral settlements.2. Determination of the Assessment Year for Capital Gains:The assessee contended that the transfer of property occurred in January 2008, relevant to the assessment year 2008-09, not 2009-10. The Tribunal noted that the plaintiffs in the Civil Court suit had claimed possession and ownership since January 2008, which the assessee admitted. The Civil Court's decree dated 07.03.2009 merely confirmed this prior settlement. Thus, the Tribunal concluded that the transfer occurred in January 2008, and any capital gain would pertain to the assessment year 2008-09, not 2009-10.3. Validity of the Addition of Rs. 55,03,319/- as Income from Capital Gain:The Assessing Officer had computed the long-term capital gain by applying the rate of Rs. 8,000 per sq.yd. based on the Sub Registrar's report and added Rs. 55,03,319/- as income from capital gain. The assessee argued that the property was transferred through a mutual family settlement and not a sale, and hence, no capital gain arose. The Tribunal found that since the property transfer was based on an oral family settlement and no Sale Deed was registered, Section 50C was not applicable. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 55,03,319/- was deemed invalid. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs Mahalakshmi Mills, emphasizing the duty of the Assessing Officer to apply the correct legal provisions.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that no capital gain arose in the assessment year 2009-10 as the provisions of Section 50C were not applicable due to the lack of a registered Sale Deed. Additionally, the property transfer through an oral family settlement pertained to the assessment year 2008-09. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities below and deleted the entire addition of Rs. 55,03,319/-. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
TaxTMI 