2018 (5) TMI 1257

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee has shown capital gain of Rs. 4,03,575/-. From the perusal of the details filed, it was noticed that the assessee along with his two sons namely, Dr.G. Venkata Krishna & Dr. G. Murali Krishna had transferred, the property in question, in favour of M/s. Sri Ramdas Paper Boards (Pvt.) Ltd. The Assessing Officer also noted that prior to that, an agreement for sale dated 06/03/2006 was executed by the above said persons in favour of (1) Sri S. Chandra Reddy, (2) Smt. S.Krishna Kumari, (3)Sri S. Ashok Reddy and (4) Sri S. Chaitanya Reddy vide registered document No. 3416/2006 on 10/04/2006. The Assessing Officer gathered information from the Joint Sub....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Officer has observed that the facts are different in the case on hand, hence, no application. 3. On appeal, ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the SRO's value on the property as on 10/04/2006 has to be considered for capital gain and not the date of finally sold the property i.e. 07/02/2008 on the ground that this is a registered agreement and also assessee along with all proposed vendees signed the document. 6. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative has relied on the orders of the authorities below. 7. We have heard both the sides, perused the material available on record and orders....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... counsel for the assessee for the reason that the date of registration is only valid for one month and the property was sold altogether to a new vendee i.e. M/s. Sri Ramdas Paper Boards (Pvt.) Ltd., near about two years. Therefore, in the eye of law, the agreement is not in force on the date of sale. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has rightly adopted the SRO's value as on the date of sale of Rs. 57,47,000/-, which was confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). We find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld.CIT(A). So far as case-laws relied on by the ld. counsel for the assessee in the case of M/s. Lahiri Promoters (supra) and Smt. Chalasani Naga Ratna Kumari Vs. ITO in ITA No. 639/Vizag/2013, dated 23/12/2016, have no application to the facts of t....