TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 1134
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iable to capital gain. 3. He has erred in law and on facts in not accepting the facts that this being the case of family arrangement not liable to capital gain. 4. He has erred in law and on facts in not accepting the contention of the assessee that the sale deed in name of family members having been executed for loan purposes only should not be treated as sale deed liable to capital gain. 5. He has erred in law and on facts in not accepting the contention of the assessee to consider the transactions of sale deed as gift read with rectification deed duly registered with sub-registrar affirming & clarifying gifts in favour of family members not liable to capital gain and has also erred in treating the same as afterthought. 6. He has erred in law and on facts in applying the provisions of Section 50C to the family plots under consideration which were gifted. 7. On the facts no addition on account of capital gain ought to have been made and the return income ought to have been accepted. 8. On the facts no interest u/s. 234-B ought to have been levied. 9. The appellant craves leave, to add / to alter and /or modify any ground of appeal." 3. The brief facts of the case ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....684/- as Long-Term Capital Gains (in short "LTCG") in the hands of the assessee by invoking the provisions of Section 50C of the Act. 4. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions with the following observations: "6. In view of the above provisions, the assessing officer has made the addition of Rs. 30,53,684/-, in the form of long term capital gains, considering the difference in the registered sale deed price and the stamp duty valuation price of the property sold by the appellant. The submissions and statement of facts of the appellant, as available on record, have been considered carefully. Following important facts emerge from the careful perusal of order of the AO and related facts:- 1. Sale deed(s) were registered by the appellant on 29/9/2012 2. ITR of the appellant was filed on 28/3/2015 3. There is no mention of gift to daughter-in-law in the ITR or the computation of income attached with ITR, 4. In fact, capital Loss has been computed in ITR from sale of plots 5. Claim of gift to daughter-in-law is an afterthought, hence it cannot be accepted as credible and reliable, 6. Gift deed is a self-serving document, hence liable to be rejected, 7. The appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l contentions and perused the material on record. We observe that this issue has been directly dealt with by the ITAT Delhi in the case of Smt. Balwant Kaur Mangat vs. ITO in ITA No. 5717/Del/2015 vide order dated 08.08.2017 wherein the ITAT made the following observations:- "5.3 Apropos ground no. 3 relating to computing the long term capital gain and added back the same as Long Term Capital Gain is concerned, I find that assessee has contended that the impugned property had been transferred to her daughter as a gift and therefore charging Long Term Capital Gains applying provisions of Section 50C is bad in law. In its written submission on behalf of the assessee, the Ld. AR of the assessee has contended that the intention of the assessee was to transfer the property as a gift to her daughter and not to earn any capital gain and avoid taxes thereon. The intention was to provide the full ownership right to the daughter and the gift has been effectuated by way of registered deed. On the advice of the deed writer the transaction was shown as the sale for a consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/-, whereas no consideration was received by the appellant from her daughter. However, the bank ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sferee, and therefore it should be held so in the case of the assessee also is not tenable because in case of the daughter the consideration as per stamp duty valuation is not taxable as per proviso to 16 section 56(2)(vii). However, the provisions of capital gains taxation and the income from other sources are independent of each other. The income in the hands of the daughter having been held to be exempt, does not absolve the assesee from the capital gain liability. In view of the above, the contention of assessee was rightly been rejected by the Ld. CIT(A), which does not need any interference on my part, hence, I uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and reject the issue in dispute raised by the assessee. 6. In the result, Assessee's appeal is dismissed." 8. In the case of Shri Jay Atulbhai Mody v, ITO in ITA number 240/Rjt/2017, the ITAT held that property transferred to Mother through Sale Deed is a sale and not Gift, taxable as capital gain. The ITAT made the following observations, while passing the order: "12.4 On merit of the case, we note that the property was transferred by the assessee to his mother by way of sale deed no. 3852 dated 13-04-2006 ....