TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 1264
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ong with his brother Mohammed Layeeq bearing No.2-2-184/1 (Plot No,9), Turab Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad for a sale consideration of Rs.23,50,000 vide Sale Deed No.3347/2008 for the F.Y. 2008-09. This property is a joint property of assessee and his brother Mohd. Layaeeq. However, it was found that the assessee has not filed any Return of Income. On verification of the same, the Assessing Officer has issued several notices seeking the information from the assessee. There was no response from the assessee, the Assessing Officer invoked provisions of section 50C of the Act and adopted the SRO value for calculating the capital gains at Rs.34,16,000 as against the sale consideration adopted by the assessee in the sale deed of Rs.23,50,000. The assessee and his brother has entered into an agreement of sale on 5.10.2000 at 2-2-184, Turabnagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad admeasuring 206 sq. yds for a total consideration of Rs.3.70 lakhs from Sri Syed Salahuddin and the assessee has paidd entire amount by Feb., 2001 and taken over the possession of the property from the seller. The assessee's brother Mohd. Layeeq was out of country for a period of three years, due to that sale deed was not exe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 13.10.2008. However the contention of the Revenue is that the valid sale deed was executed only on 10.7.2006 with SRO, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. The assessee and his brother sold the property on 13.10.2008 only. Therefore the documentary evidence fairly establishes that the assessee had purchased the property on 10.07.2006 and sold the same on 13.10.2008. Therefore the Assessing Officer has correctly computed the STCG. In this case, the assessee did not place any evidence before the authorities below as well as before us. Moreover, the assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer to establish the said fact inspite of repeated notices. Before us also, the assessee had not placed any satisfactory evidence that the sale transaction has been completed in Feb., 2001 except the cancellation of telephone connection in the property purchased by the assessee, it is difficult to come to a conclusion based on the cancellation of telephone connection that they are in possession of the property. Apart from this, the GPA was registered as document No.2691/2006 on 30.06.2006 at SRO, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. Therefore, we are of the view that the sale has taken place only on 10.07.2006. He....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... amount of the capital gain is greater than the cost of the residential house so purchased or constructed (hereafter in this section referred to as the new asset), the difference between the amount of the capital gain and the cost of the new asset shall be charged under section 45 as the income of the previous year; and for the purpose of computing in respect of the new asset any capital gain arising from its transfer within a period of three years of its purchase or construction, as the case may be, the cost shall be nil; or (ii) if the amount of the capital gain is equal to or less than the cost of the new asset, the capital gain shall not be charged under section 45; and for the purpose of computing in respect of the new asset any capital gain arising from its transfer within a period of three years of its purchase or construction, as the case may be, the cost shall be reduced by the amount of the capital gain: 45[Provided that where the amount of the capital gain does not exceed two crore rupees, the assessee may, at his option, purchase or construct two residential houses in India, and where such option has been exercised,- (a) the provisions of this sub-sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing that he purchased or constructed a residential house as per provisions of section 54 of the Act. Therefore in the absence of any such evidence, the A.O. as well as CIT(A)dismissed the instant ground raised by the assessee. The assessee failed to establish ownership right over the residential property but being only a GPA holder and Agreement holder. After considering the findings of the lower authorities, we do not find any infirmity in the orders of authorities below. Hence ground raised u/s. 54 of the Act by the assessee is dismissed. 6.3 In the result, the assessee's appeal in ITA No.321/Hyd/2018 is dismissed. ITA No.322/Hyd/2018 7. Since the facts are identical in this appeal to the facts dealt with in preceding paras in ITA 321/Hyd/2018, same decision applies to this appeal of assessee also. 8. To sum up, both the appeals of assessees are dismissed. A copy of this common order be placed in the case file. Order pronounced in the open court on 20th Jan.,2022. ============= Document 1 1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) hastily concluded that the Agreement of Sale Deed 05.10.2000 is "Not a Valid Agreement" just because it is not regi....