2022 (7) TMI 1148 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal affirms capital gains tax ruling on property transfer, denies rectification request

Ramelaben Ganpatlal Patel Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 3 (3) (4), Ahmedabad

The Tribunal upheld its original decision regarding the capital gain tax liability on the transfer of immovable property, rejecting the assessee's claim ... Rectification of mistake u/s 254 - LTCG - consideration was received by the late father of the assessee or assessee? - assessee before the Tribunal argued that the assessee having not received any consideration, there was no question of any capital gain tax chargeable in her hands - HELD THAT:- As rightly contended by learned DR, a definite view was taken by the Tribunal while rejecting the main contention of the assessee by passing a well reasoned and well discussed order. It is well settled that the scope of rectification under Section 254(2) of the Act is limited to rectify the mistakes which are apparent from the record and it is not permissible to review the decision taken by the Tribunal. In our view, what the assessee is seeking in the guise of this Miscellaneous Application is the review of the well reasoned and well considered decision taken by the Tribunal which is not permissible under Section 254(2) of the Act. We, therefore, reject the said application being devoid of any merit. Miscellaneous Application is dismissed. Issues:Rectification of mistake alleged in the Tribunal's order regarding capital gain tax chargeable on the transfer of immovable property.Analysis:The assessee filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking rectification of a mistake in the Tribunal's order related to the capital gain tax chargeable on the transfer of immovable property. The main contention was that since the consideration was received by the late father of the assessee and not by the assessee herself, there should be no capital gain tax liability. The assessee argued that the sale deed, being the only evidence, did not show that the assessee, as a legal heir, received any consideration. However, the Departmental Representative argued that the Tribunal had already considered all facts and rejected the assessee's contention with cogent reasons.The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and relevant material, rejected the assessee's claim based on the facts presented. The Tribunal highlighted that the property transfer occurred when the sale deed was executed and registered, not when the banakhat was made in 2000. It was noted that the late father of the assessee had already received a sum from the buyer in the past, which was adjusted against the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed. The Tribunal emphasized that the consideration was indeed received by the assessee and other co-owners, as stated in the sale deed. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee was liable for capital gain tax on the transfer.The Tribunal further explained that the scope of rectification under Section 254(2) of the Act is limited to correcting mistakes apparent from the record and does not allow for a review of the decision. The Tribunal deemed the assessee's application as an attempt to review the well-reasoned decision, which is not permissible under the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application for being devoid of merit.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld its original decision regarding the capital gain tax liability on the transfer of the immovable property, rejecting the assessee's claim for rectification based on the lack of merit in the application.