TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 1060
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....first respondent for the Assessment Year 2013-2014 and for the Assessment Year 2014-15 respectively. 3. By the impugned orders, income from long-term capital of the petitioner from the sale of property has been re-computed and accordingly the petitioner has been called upon to pay the differential taxes. 4. The petitioner along with her sister sold a property which sale was apparently negotiated by their father during his lifetime. However, before the sale could be completed, their father passed away on 15.01.2012 and therefore the buyers negotiated the sale price with the petitioner and concluded the sale in respect of two parcels of land in Varadharajapuram Village, Sriperumbadur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu and in Kundrathu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Nadu, which were sold to Mr.S.Dhansekharen and Mrs.D.Sasirekha pursuant to two unregistered sale agreements both dated 13.12.2013, though a reference was made to the second respondent under Section 55A read with Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the first respondent proceeded to pass the impugned assessment order dated 30.12.2016 for the Assessment Year 2014-15 under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the time for passing the assessment order was also expiring on 30.12.2016. The petitioner had also sold another property in Ashok Nagar, Chennai. 9. These orders are challenged by the petitioner primarily on the ground that the sale price was negotiated by the petitioner's father with the respective buyers during his lifet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rney in favour of the first buyer sometime in 2012. 13. The agreement has certain blanks which have not been filled up. Similarly, in respect of the second parcel of land sold to Mr.S.Dhansekharen and Mrs.D.Sasirekha in Varadharajapuram Village, Sriperumbadur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu the sale agreement was directly negotiated by the petitioner herself with the buyers. 14. The two other parcels of land in Kundrathur Sriperumbadur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu, which were sold to Mr.S.Dhansekharen and Mrs.D.Sasirekha vide two separate sale agreements both dated 13.12.2013 again were negotiated by the petitioner herself. 15. In these writ petitions, it is the contention of the petitioner that the respondents ought....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. 19. All these agreements are unregistered agreements. Though it is the case of the petitioner that the sales of the properties were negotiated by her father during his lifetime and had received an advance of Rs. 50 lakhs in respect of the first property in Varadharajapuram Village, Sriperumbadur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu from M/s.Tatia Development Private Limited on various dates and manifold increase in the guideline value by the Registration Department in 2012 cannot be the basis to countermand the value adopted in the sale agreement. It is therefore submitted that the higher value adopted was liable to be quashed. 20. Such submission cannot ....