Tribunal remits matter for fresh assessment, directs AO to verify evidence and adjudicate issue on merits. Assessee's onus to prove sale transaction was not sham.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remitting the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment. The AO is directed to verify all the evidence and explanations provided by the assessee and adjudicate the issue on merits in accordance with the law, giving proper opportunity to the assessee to be heard. The onus is on the assessee to prove that the sale transaction was a sham.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Chargeability to tax of long-term capital gains on the sale of land by the assessee to her husband.
2. Validity of the sale deed and whether it is a sham transaction.
3. Application of Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
4. Consideration received and whether the contract is void ab initio.
5. Interpretation of the transaction as a sale or a gift.
6. Additional evidences and their verification.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Chargeability to Tax of Long-Term Capital Gains:
The primary issue in this appeal is the chargeability to tax of long-term capital gains on the sale of 25 ½ cents of land by the assessee to her husband. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee did not declare the long-term capital gains arising from this sale in her return of income. The AO computed the long-term capital gains at Rs. 47,72,821 by invoking Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)].

2. Validity of the Sale Deed and Whether it is a Sham Transaction:
The assessee contended that the sale deed was a sham transaction, as the full consideration was not received. Only Rs. 5,43,000 was received, and the remaining Rs. 28,00,000 was covered by an unexecuted promissory note. The assessee argued that the contract was void ab initio due to the lack of consideration and that the transaction should be viewed as a gift between husband and wife. The CIT(A) disbelieved these contentions, noting that the property was conveyed through a registered sale deed.

3. Application of Section 50C:
The AO applied Section 50C, which considers the guideline value of the property as the full value of consideration. The guideline value was Rs. 48,99,520, and the AO computed the long-term capital gains accordingly. The assessee did not challenge the invocation of Section 50C but argued that the sale deed was a sham.

4. Consideration Received and Whether the Contract is Void ab Initio:
The assessee provided evidence, including bank statements, to show that the Rs. 5,43,000 received was refunded to her husband. She argued that the promissory note for Rs. 28,00,000 was never realized, making the contract void ab initio. The Tribunal noted that the assessee needs to prove that the transaction was a sham and that the onus is on her to rebut the presumption of a complete transfer.

5. Interpretation of the Transaction as a Sale or a Gift:
The assessee argued that the transaction should be viewed as a gift between husband and wife, which would not attract capital gains tax. However, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal noted that the transaction was executed through a registered sale deed, and the property was conveyed absolutely.

6. Additional Evidences and Their Verification:
The assessee presented additional evidence, including an affidavit, Vardhamanam Deed, and a registered settlement deed executed after the appellate order. The Tribunal observed that these documents and the new contentions need verification by the authorities. The case was remitted back to the AO for a fresh de novo assessment, allowing the assessee to present all explanations and evidence.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remitting the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment. The AO is directed to verify all the evidence and explanations provided by the assessee and adjudicate the issue on merits in accordance with the law, giving proper opportunity to the assessee to be heard. The onus is on the assessee to prove that the sale transaction was a sham.

---