TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 1091
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... grounds in his appeal however, the cruxes of the issues are that:- (i) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action initiated by the Ld. AO U/s. 147 & 148 of the Act after the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. (ii) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Act without considering the fact that the property was sold on 23/1/2004, though the sale deed was executed during the relevant assessment year. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in Bakery business, filed his return of income on 3/4/2008 declaring income of Rs. 1,83,805/- for the relevant AY 2007-08. Thereafter it was revealed that the assessee has sold....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....operty the purchaser had requested the assessee to execute proper sale deed and accordingly the same was registered on 20/11/2006 vide Doc No.2384/2006 before the SRO, Secunderabad. The Ld. AR had further submitted that the market value of the property had escalated subsequently to Rs. 16,72,000/- when the property was registered on 20/11/2006. The Ld. AR therefore pleaded before the Ld.AO that since the actual transfer of the property had taken place during the AY 2004-05 capital gain tax cannot be assessed in the hands of the assessee for the relevant AY 2007-08 and if at all it is required to be assessed in the relevant assessment year then the sale value of the property should be taken as Rs. 5 lakhs being the actual sale consideration ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ined unpaid till date. (iii) In the notarised sale deed 23/1/2004 the vendee's name is stated to be Smt. D. Malathy W/o. Sri A.R. Devender Rao D/o Sri D. Ellaiah Aged about 33 years, occupation-Business, resident of H.No. 1-10-104/6, Allamthota Bhavi, Begumpet, Hyderabad, AP while as in the sale deed registered before the Sub-Registrar Office, Secunderabad the name of the vendee is stated as Smt. Arutla Malathi, W/o. Sri A.R. Devender Rao, D/o. Sri D. Ellaiah, Aged about 36 years, Occupation-Business, R/o. H.No.1-10-104/27, Allamthota bhavi, Mayur Marg, Begumpet, Hyderabad. Therefore, it is very clear that the registered sale deed is in favour of a different individual. (iv) In para No.3 of the Registered Sale Deed dated 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ompute the correct capital gain based on the SRO value of Rs. 16,72,000/-. 8. Before me the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had received the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs on 27/12/2003 vide cheque no. 0453931 with respect to his sale of the property to Smt. Arutla Malathi. It was further submitted that possession of the property was handed over to Smt. Arutla Malathi on 27/12/2003 and an unregistered sale deed was executed on 23/01/2004 which was duly notarized. It was further argued stating that Smt. Arutla Malathi requested for executing the registered sale deed during the relevant assessment year in order to perfect her title and as per her directions the sale deed was executed on 20/11/2006. It was further clarified that certain mistakes ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sale of his immovable property and the possession of the property was also handed over to the vendee. Just because there were few mistakes committed on the unregistered notarized sale deed, the fact that the amount received by the assessee towards the sale consideration of the property and the handing over the possession of the property cannot be disputed. Section 2(47)(v) of the Act clearly stipulates that transfer of the immovable property comes into effect when possession of the property is handed over coupled with part performance of the contract of the nature referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In the instant case, it is apparent that on 27/12/2003 the assessee had received the part consideration of Rs. 5 ....