TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 13
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....my and Rs. 85,00,000/- for the sale to Smt. G. Rajamani. The total land measuring 9,420 sq.ft. together with building thereon at Arumbakkam, Chennai was given as collateral security for the loan raised from SIPCOT. It is stated in the sale agreement that since the original title deeds were deposited with SIPCOT, the sale deeds shall be executed after the release of original title deeds. From 22.3.2002 to 28.7.2002, a sum of Rs. 21 lakhs has been given to the assessee by the intending purchaser V.R.Govindasamy towards part of the advance sale consideration. On 05.01.2005, Catholic Syrian Bank took over the security for recalling the loan. Thereafter, on 16.5.2006, a further payment of Rs. 56.00 lakhs was made to the assessee towards balance sale consideration. On 17.5.2006, sale deeds were executed by the assessee in favour of the above-said purchasers. In the meanwhile, on 01.04.2003, Section 50C of the Income Tax Act was introduced from the assessment year 2003-04. The assessee filed his return of income on 31.3.2008 for the assessment year 2007-08 admitting a total income of Rs. 12,72,019/- and the same was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. Thereafter, the cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee and the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer rejected the explanation given by the assessee for the following reasons: i. The agreement relied by the assessee is not a registered document. ii. The value agreed as per the registered sale deeds dated 17.05.2006 amounts to Rs. 1,70,41,261/- (8541261+8500000) whereas the value asessee by the stamp authorities works out to be. 5. The Assessing Officer found that the value assessed by the Stamp Valuation Authorities as follows: Doc. No. In favour of Value agreed as per deed The amount of stamp duty paid Market Value assessed by stamp valuation authorities Difference 2044 dt.17.05.06 G.Rajamani 85,00,000 13,10,755/-(670000+569560+71195) 1,63,84,438/- (1310755*100/8)Rs. 78,84,4382043 dt.17.05.06 V.R.Govindasamy 85,41,261/- 13,10,755/- (6733040+566256+70780) 1,63,79,250/-1310340*100/878,37,989 Total 1,70,41,261 3,27,63,688 1,57,22,427 6. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee did not hand over possession in favour of the purchasers on the date of alleged agreement of sale and only on the date of registration of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the transfer of the capital asset based on the sale deeds dated 17.5.2006 as against the plea for reckoning of the transfer for the purpose of assessment in the Assessment Year 2002-03 based on the sale agreements dated 27.10.2001 read with provisions in section 2(47) of the Act, defining the term 'transfer' in the Act? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in sustaining the assessment of Long Term Capital Gains in the Assessment Year under consideration on the application of section 50C of the Act which provisions were incorporated in the statute with effect from the Assessment Year 2003-04 even though the rejection of the plea for reckoning the transfer on the factual matrix of the case read with the legal position with regard to the part performance theory relating to the Assessment Year 2002-03? 3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in not considering the provisions in section 50C(2) of the Act in any event with a view to determine the fair market value of the capital asset transferred in view of the depressing factors with a view to substitute such value as the sale consideration for the apparent/stated consideration for computing th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ttedly, the facts are not in dispute. The sale agreement was entered into in the year 2001 and the sale was completed only in the year 2006. There is no dispute insofar as the decision taken by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or by the Tribunal that the provisions of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act would be applicable to the transaction in question. The only issue which arise for consideration is whether in terms of Clause (2) to Section 50C, the claim of the assessee that the valuation adopted by them should be accepted or not. We find from the Assessment Order that when the proceedings were reopened pursuant to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act dated 27.9.2010, there had been certain exchange of correspondences between the assessee and the Department. The value adopted by the Valuation Authority in the year 2006 was much higher than the sale consideration adopted by the assessee in the year 2001 and therefore there resulted in the computation of capital gains on such transaction in terms of Section 50C(1) of the Income Tax Act as determined by the Stamp Valuation Authorities. This, according to the assessee, was not correct in view of the variou....