TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 456
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fficer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and show caused to the assessee why the order passed by the Assessing Officer cannot be reversed. In response to the show cause notice issued by the Ld. CIT, the assessee has submitted a detailed reply dated 7.3.2013. The Ld. CIT after considering the submissions filed by the assessee, he has observed that the assessee has sold the property and as per the sale deed dated 18.6.2007, the sale price was Rs. 60 lakhs. The market value as on the date of the registration dated 25.8.2007 was Rs. 2,17,80,000/- and stated that the Assessing Officer has not examined the issue properly. Therefore, the Ld. CIT was of the opinion that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 4. In so far as the claim of the assessee in respect of u/s 54F of the Act, the Ld. CIT has observed that the assessee neither purchased the property nor constructed residential house property from the capital gain accrued from the sale of the capital asset. The assessee has only contributed money for the construction of the house and the land owned by his father. Therefore, the assessee is n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his mind simply passed an assessment order without considering the subsequent SRO value of the property and submitted that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Ld. D.R. has submitted that the assessing officer without making any enquiry and also not applying the mind passed the assessment order. Therefore, the order passed by the A.O. is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. To support his argument, he relied on the judgements in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi Vs. CIT 67 ITR 84 (SC) & 341 ITR 434 in the case of CIT Vs. Jawahar Bhattacharjee. The Ld. DR stated that the assessing officer has not made a proper enquiry, therefore, the assessment order is not valid for the reason that he had passed order without applying his mind. He also relied on the decision in the case Duggal and Co. Vs. CIT 220 ITR 456. 8. So far as section 54F of the Act is concerned, he has submitted that the assessee is not the owner of the land on which the sale consideration received by the assessee was invested. Therefore, he is not entitled for claiming benefit u/s 54F of the Act. 9. We have heard both the part....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....operty is Rs. 2,17,80,000/-. In our opinion, once assessee received sale consideration and transferred the property to the purchaser through G.P.A., subsequently for the purpose of calculation of the capital gains the value of the property in the hands of the assessee has to be taken as the date on which assessee has transferred the property to the purchaser i.e. 9.7.2007. Once property was transferred to the purchaser through GPA, it is open to the purchaser to register according to his convenience. Therefore, the date on which the property got registered in favour of the purchaser is not a material for the purpose of value of the property in the hands of the assessee. Hence, we find that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The order passed by the Ld. CIT on this count cannot stand. Even otherwise, the assessing officer after examining all the details of the property i.e. when the assessee originally purchased the property and the subsequent sale consideration, the market value of the property as per the stamp valuation authority as on the date of the execution of the GPA in favour of the purchaser, in our ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent no.5441/1994 (4) Rs. 93,450/- on 18.8.194 vide document no.5507/1994. The assessee sold all the properties on 18.6.2007 vide document no.6542/2007 for a sale consideration of Rs. 80,91,000/-. The sale consideration has been invested by the assessee in a house property situated at Banjara Hills, Hyderabad value at Rs. 2,73,87,000/- by registered valuer which is standing in the name of the assessee and two other persons i.e. K. Penchala Naidu and Smt. Varalakshmi. He further observed that on verification of record, it was found as per the memorandum of family agreement dated 15.10.2006, the assessee share was 1/3rd of the total cost of the building and the remaining shares belonging to other co-owners as stated above. Accordingly, the assessee's share in this property is worked out to Rs. 74,62,333/- being 1/3rd share and accordingly assessee's claim was allowed. The objection of the Ld. Commissioner is that the assessee is not a legal owner of the property and therefore not entitled for the benefit u/s 54F of the Act. We find that the assessing officer after examining all the details of the properties which Assessee was purchased earlier and sold subsequently and received consid....