TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (6) TMI 408
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s mortgaged. 3. The competent authority has failed to appreciate the fact that the conditions prescribed under 269 C that there was a motive to facilitate the evasion of tax of transferor or transferee did not exist in this transaction because the transaction of transfer involved getting back his own property which was mortgaged. 4. There being no under statement of market value with a motive to evade the tax as contemplated under section 269C; the proceedings U/s. 269F (6) are bad in law and requires to be struck down." 3. The short facts of the case are that the property in question is Survey No. 1750/1 A and 1750/1B. On 21/09/1944 Shri Uttamchand Chunilal Shah and Ors. mortgaged this property to Mr. Ramrao Bindurao Bagalkotkar for Rs. 16000/-. The entry in respect of this transaction is also found in the survey extract. Shri Uttamchand Chunilal Shah did not paid this amount to Mr. Ramrao Bindurao Bagalkotkar who filed a civil suit for recovery of the amount and the property in dispute was transferred under a registered sale deed. The competent authority under chapter XXA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has issued the show cause notice u/s. 26....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9F which was dismissed as not maintainable. Thus, the course of action from then onwards started on a different footing concentrating mainly on the amount of compensation to be received and the protection of tenancy right footing the case in Civil Court and onwards upto the Apex Court. Thus, the main issue of fighting before the ITAT on the merits of the order U/s. 269F (6) remained to be unattended and it was only because of non advise and lack of proper guidance of the Charter Accountant who has handling the issue. The assessee's father was a heard patient and suffering from diabetes and he died on heart attack on 28.02.2009. The assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal and to condone the delay. 4. The learned AR has filed the written submission which read as under: "The appeal involves in a first place condonation of delay of 36 years and secondly deciding the case on merits of the issue. As regards condonation of delay I submit that my father late Shri. Nandlal Khothari who was fighting against the order of competent authority was ill-advised and the matter was taken first to the court for claiming higher compensation etc. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acilitating the reduction or evasion of the liability of the transferor to pay tax under this Act in respect of any income arising from the transfer; or b. facilitating the concealment of any income or any moneys or other assets which have not been or which ought to be disclosed by the transferee for the purpose of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or this Act or the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957). In our case there was no such situation because the property purchased is our own family property which was mortgaged to one Mr. Bagalkothar for Rs. 16,000 in the year 1944. The loan amount was not paid and the mortgagee approached the court for recovery. Finally in court ordered auction, the mortgagee himself purchased the property for Rs.39,539 on 3rd FEB 1973. Immediately after that there was some negotiation between our family and the mortgagee and our own property was purchased back for the Rs. 45,000 on 26.02.1973 that is after only 23 days which is a subject matter of acquisition proceedings. Hence the property in question is our own property coming back to us and therefore the requirement of law U/s 269C wherein situation for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../85 5. Smt. Parvathibai W/o Kondiram Sale, Major, rest-do- 11357/85 6. Subrao Govindrao Mangalore, Major, Rest-do- 11358/85 7. Rangakppa Channabasappa Kotagi, Major, Rest-do- 11359/85 8. Mallappa Irappa Kolhar, Major, Rest-do- 11360/85 9.Bindurao Mahadevappa Udachan, Major, Rest-do- 11361/85 10. Smt. Ramabai W/o Bandopant alias Dagadopant Nikkambe, Major, Rest-do- 11362/85 11. Bhaskar Vasudevarao Kulkarni, Major, Rest- do 11363/85 12. Gurupaddappa G.Patil, Major, Rest -do- (By Sri W.K. Joshi for petitioners.) 11364/85 AND: 1. Union of India, By its Secretary, Finance Department, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. 2. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, (Acquisition Range,) Banglore. 3. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, (Acquisition Range), Dharwar. 4. G.Muthukrishnan, Executive Engineer, Bangalore Central Division-II, 23/24, Infantry Road, Bangalore-1. (By Sri G. Sarangan, Special Standing Counsel for respondents)  ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome tax Act, 1961 and the profits arising on the sale of the same would be liable to capital gains tax. Therefore, any understatement of real consideration in the transfer document would definitely facilitate the transferor to reduce or evade his liability to capital gains tax in respect of the transfer. In the case of the transferee also the rebuttable presumption that the understatement of the real consideration in the transfer document had been done with a view to facilitate him to evade taxes in the manner laid down in Section 269C(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has not been rebutted with any evidence leave alone convincing evidence. The mere assertion that the price paid is what has been shown in the sale document cannot be accepted in the light of the special Rules of Evidence introduced under Chapter XXA of the Income tax Act, 1961 through Section 269C(2)(b) unless the contrary is shown. Further the above assertion is only a self-serving statement without any independent evidence. Thus all the requirements of Section 269F(6) of the Income tax Act, 1961 are satisfied in this case and therefore I hereby pass an order for the acquisition of the immovable property under consi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g for condonation of delay. This case pertains to the State wherein the State has shown the sufficient reason, but in the instant case, assessee is in appeal before us. 2. BHARAT AUTO CENTER V/s COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX: Appeal [CIT (A)]- Condonation of delay- Reasonable cause-Since an important legal point relating to jurisdiction of the assessing authority was involved, the assessee sought legal opinion of several counsel which took a long time and then a writ petition was filed but subsequently appeal was filed. Aforesaid reason appear to be sufficient cause for the delay-Delay ought to have been condoned-Matter is remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merit. In this case the assessee sought legal opinion of several counsel which took a long time. Therefore, there was a reasonable cause held by the High Court but in the case of hand it is not the cause of the assessee that several years has taken place for obtaining the legal opinion, therefore, this will not help to the assessee. 3. DINESH NAGINDAS SHAH VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 273 ITR 229 (GUJ): Condonation of delay- Reasonable cause- Petitioners omitted to claim ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under s.246A was dismissed on 25th sep., 2012 by CIT(A)-Application under s. 154 for the rectification of the order dt. 25th sep., 2002 was filed on 23 Dec., 2002 but the same was rejected by CIT(A) by order dt. 20th Oct., 2003- Assessee filed an appeal on 28th Nov., 2003 before the Tribunal against the order dt.25th Sep., 2002 passed by the CIT (A) assessee exercised due diligence and was not in filing the appeal against the order dt.25th sep, 2002- Record of the case shows that the assessee had taken the matter with his counsel and proceedings taken for rectification of CIT(A)'s order on his advise took a long time which resulted the delay in filing the appeal- tribunal not justified in refusing to condone the delay. In the instant case the assessee could not prefer appeal within time on account of advice allegedly given by its Advocate, but it has already been informed to the original owner of the property Nandalal Tejmal Kothari in the order under Section 269F(6) that the appeal lies against the order to the ITAT, Bangalore Bench and same has to be filed within the 45 days from the date of the order. The assessee was specifically advised in the order itself, therefore, it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refore, it will not be helpful to the assessee. 9. CIT Vs SITA WORLD TRAVELS (INDIA) LTD 5 TAX CORP (DT) 48934 (DELHI): On the other hand, section 14 contained in para III of the limitation Act does not relate to extension of the period of limitation, but relates to exclusion of certain period while computing the period of limitation. Neither sub-section [3) of section 31 of the AC Act nor any other provision of the AC Act exclude the applicability of section 14 of the limitation Act to applications under section 34 [1) of the AC Act. Nor will the proviso to section 34 (3) exclude the application as section 14, as section 14 is not a provision for extension of period of limitation. Having regard to section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, Section 14 of the Act will be applicable to an application under section 34 [1) of the AC Act, the time during which applicant was prosecuting such application before the wrong court is excluded, provided the proceeding in the wrong court was prosecuted bonafide, with due diligence. In the instant case the assessee could not prefer appeal within time on account of advice allegedly given by its Advocate, but it has already been in....