TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 165
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. The Appellant denies herself liable to be assessed on a total income of Rs. 8,83,93,817/- as against the returned income of Rs. 39,70,830/- under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in holding that the provisions of section 50C of the Act is mandatory and thereby upholding the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer of a sum of Rs. 55,39,181/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that in view of the third proviso to section 50C of the Act difference between the sale consideration and the stamp duty value to the extent of ten percent is to be ignored and consequently the addition made under section 50C of the Act is contrary to the provisions of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the sale consideration declared by the appellant is the market value of the property which is as per the government guidance value of the property and consequently the addition made under section 50C of the Act is unwarrant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er section 234B of the Act, in view of the fact that there is no liability to additional tax as determined by the assessing officer. Without prejudice, the rate, period and on what quantum the interest has been levied are not in accordance with law and are not discernible from the order and hence deserves to be cancelled on the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. The appellant craves leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal, to add, alter, delete, amend, or substitute any or all of the above grounds of appeal as may be necessary at the time of hearing. 15. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of appeal, the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed for the advancement of substantial cause of justice and equity. 2. Briefly stated, the fact of the case shows that assessee is an individual who filed her return of income on 30.08.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 33,71,480/- comprising of income from capital gains, income from house property and income from other sources. This return was revised on 05.08.2013 at total income of Rs. 39,70,830/-. 3. Subsequently, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act (The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rbed. The learned CIT(A), in paragraph No.6.2.4 confirmed applicability of provisions of section 50C of the Act and recalculation of cost of acquisition. Thus, the addition of Rs. 8,36,25,000/- to the total income of the assessee was confirmed. This issue is under challenge before us. 9. The learned AR has stated that he would first like to consider the grounds that the learned CIT(A) is not justified in assessing the sum of Rs. 8,36,25,000/- as alleged long term capital gain arising on sale of the agricultural land as against the short term capital gain of Rs. Nil. He specifically stated that the agricultural land acquired by the assessee is received as a gift from her husband, which is transferred and capital gain is charged in the hands of the assessee which is not correct in view of the provisions of section 64(1)(iv) of the Act. He submitted the fact that assessee is individual and wife of Shri. Rajesh Gundu Rao who gifted the property to the wife which is being sold. Shri. Rajesh Gundu Rao acquired part of the property by way of Memorandum of Partition dated 26.05.1995 and out of that vide gift deed dated 04.05.2009, the property was gifted to his wife Smt. Sushama Rajesh ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the capital gain. Now, speaking about the provisions of section 64(1)(iv) of the Act is a well considered after thought to evade tax liability and further the assessee has not raised these contentions before any of the lower authorities. It was further stated that principle of estoppel applies here which precludes the person from ascertain something contrary to what is implied by a previous action or statement of that person or by a previous pertinent judicial determination. Therefore, now the arguments of the learned AR are self-contradictory. The learned DR further invoked the legal res ipsa loquitur. 11. We have considered rival contentions and perused the Orders of the lower authorities. The facts stated hereinabove are not required to be reiterated. The only issue is applicability of provisions of section 64(1)(iv) of the Act. Accordingly, to that section while computing the total income of an individual, it shall also include income that arises to the spouse of such individual from whom assets were transferred directly or indirectly by that individual otherwise for adequate consideration. Thus, if any income arises to the spouse of an individual from a property transferr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... there should be "adequate consideration" and not "good consideration," it excludes mere love and affection. They may be good consideration to support a contract; but adequate consideration to avoid tax is quite a different thing. To insist on the other meaning is really to say that consideration must only be looked for when love and affection cease to exist. This extract is taken from Major V.P. Singh v. State of U.P., 1991 Supp (2) SCC 346 : (1993) 199 ITR 188 : 1991 SCC OnLine SC 28 at page 347 5. A gift is a transaction without consideration whereas exception under the proviso is in regard to a transaction for adequate consideration. In the absence of a definition of the phrase "adequate consideration," the common parlance meaning of the term has to be accepted. A reference to the decision of Hidayatullah, J. as he then was in Tulsidas Kilachand v. CIT [AIR 1961 SC 1023 : (1961) 3 SCR 351 : (1961) 42 ITR 1] shows that the words "adequate consideration" were held to denote consideration other than mere love and affection which, in the case of a wife, may be presumed. When the law insists that there should be "adequate consideration" and not good consideration, ....