TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 2160
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ground of appeal related to validity of notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. That on fats as also in law, the proceedings initiated u/s 147 of the Act is invalid and without jurisdiction and assessment finalized on such invalid notice deserves to be quashed. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts as also in law in confirming addition of Rs. 32,43,743/- made u/s 50C of the Act on sale of plots at Survey no.420, Village hapa, Dist. Jamnagar in 1998 on alleged ground that assessee failed to substantiate his claim along with documentary evidence, through all the details were on record. The addition confirmed is unjustified and uncalled for and the same may kindly be deleted. 3. Your Honour's assessee craves leave to add, to amend, alter, or withdraw any or more grounds of appeal on or before the hearing of appeal. 3. The additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: "(1). Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of case in not following doctrine of Part Performance u/s 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as the property under consideration was sold in the year 1998 and therefore making revaluation/alteration in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....istering the sale deed should not be adopted, as full value of consideration and accordingly an addition of Rs. 32,43,734/- should not be made being difference between the sale consideration and Jantri value, as long - term capital gain. 6. In response to the same, the assessee furnished written submission before the assessing officer along with documentary evidences, which is reproduced below: 3.2 In response to the same, the assessee vide reply dated 25.10.2016 furnished his objections against the proposed additions. His reply is reproduced hereunder, "With reference to the above and in continuation of our earlier submission, we submit that, we are in receipt of show cause why the capital gain should not taken at Rs 32.43.734/- and added to the total income under the head capital gain We strongly object for the show cause for proposed addition of Rs. 32,43,734/- on the following grounds: 1.0 Our earlier submission of facts regarding the documents mentioned in the notice signed as property name shown in the Revenue record of the Gujarat State Govt registry authority clearly mentioned in the sale deed executed on 05.01.2012 and not liable for the capit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is attached for your kind consideration at Page No i) A copy of letter submitted vide letter No. Nil dated 31.03.2014 with all encicsures/explanations. ii) Explanatory statement regarding the taxation of capital gain. iii) A copy of the letter submitted by Shri Ghelabhai Chothabhai Zapada, buyer of the said property confirming the purchase of said property and also confirmed that, he was engaged in the business of the land purchase and sale and said land shown in stock in trade. All documents attached at Page No. d) A copy of valuation report submitted with Income Tax Officer, Intelligence & Criminal (Investigation), Jamnagar given by Govt. Approved valuer Shri Khimjibhai T. Shiyar as regards value of plots of land as on 01.04.1981, to work out the capital gain since property purchased in the year 1965. In view of the above facts, capital gain was accrued and aroused in the A. Y. 1999-2000. Detailed working of the capital gain is given hereunder and there was no other income during the year under consideration ie. A. Y. 1999-2000, total income was only capital gain only. Since the information relates to more than 17 years back, I do not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncome from property. This amendment is common to Section 2(47) also In view of the above positions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Capital gains will have to be assessed on the basis of the date of the agreement under which possession was handed over. This will apply to cases where possession was given even long before 1987. Registration may take place long after. That will have no effect. More particularly define transfer within the meaning of Section 2(47), the minimum requirements are: There as to be an agreement between the parties signed by them; It should be in writing: It should pertain to transfer of property, and The transferee should have taken possession of the property. The Madras High Court has clarified the law on the subject in the Madathil Brothers vs DCI (301 ITR 345) case. The case considered by the High Court related to the nature of the capital gains, that is whether long term or short term. The party was in possession of property under agreement of sale entered in 1976. Sale deed was executed in July 1986 and was registered in September 1986. The High Court held that the property was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was not registered/executed at that point of time and the same was entered into year under consideration, therefore, the underlined income pertains to assessment year(AY) 1999-2000 and not for the year under consideration. The assessee also submitted that it had offered capital gain in assessment year(AY) 1999-2000 and at that point of time, section 50C was not applicable. However, ld CIT(A) observed that the assessee could not submit any supporting evidence to demonstrate the same that it had offered capital gain in assessment year(AY) 1999-2000, because these were more than seventeen years old documents, therefore, the addition made by the assessing officer for sum of Rs. 32,43,743/- was upheld by ld CIT(A). 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals),the assessee is in appeal before us. 10. Shri Mehul Ranpura, Learned Counsel for the assessee, argued that Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of case in not following doctrine of Part Performance u/s53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as the property under consideration was sold in the year 1998 and therefore making revaluation/alteration in the sale consideration u/s.50C of the Income-tax Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rpose of making agreement is not a valid stamp paper. Hence, there is no any agreement in the year 1998 which can be tenable as per law. The registration was made in assessment year 2012-13, therefore, the assessee has to pay capital gains tax in the assessment year 2012-13, for that ld. DR relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana &Anr. (Special Leave Petition (C) No. 13917 of 2009). 13. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. We note that assessee is having 1/3rt ownership in the said plots. The assessee`s Brother Siri Mehul Shirishbhai Vohra sold the property, (his respective share), and his assessment was finalized, under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, (vide assessment order dated 26.11. 2019), by the assessing officer, accepting the genuine sale (vide paper book page No. 130). "In reply to the above notice, the A.R. of the assessee, Shri Vi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this notice, the AR of the assessee made written submission dated 15-04-2019 which was received in this office on 16-04-2019 along with copy of sale agreement dated 16-07-1998, sale deed bearing no. 95 dated 05-01-2012, confirmation letter dated 10-03-2014 of Shri Rakeshbhai Mukeshbhai Khakhar, purchase of property and letter dated 05-03-2014 of Shri Ghelabhai C. Zapda and balance sheet for the year under consideration which were verified and kept on record. The case was discussed at length with the AR of the assessee. Subject to the above discussion and materials made available on record, the total income is assessed as under. Total income as per ROI.. Rs. 17,840/- Total income assessed... Rs. 17,840/-" Since, the assessing officer accepted the Sales of in the hands of two brothers in respect of the said property, on identical and similar matter, therefore addition should not be made in the hands of the third brother (assessee under consideration).The assessment order of the assessee`s two brothers are placed at paper book page nos. 130 and 133 respectively and we have gone through the same and noted that assessing officer has accepted the sale, as ge....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee claimed Long Term Capital Gain, the AO in assessee's co-owner case in PrabhodhchandraAmbelal Desai allowed the similar Long Term Capital Gain by passing the following order : "3. On perusal of records and details submitted by the assessee it was found that the assessee was co-owner having share of 6.25% in the property sold for Rs. 2,00,00,001/- on 19.01.2009 situated at Survey No.86, Lunsikui, Navsari. Value of property as per stamp duty valuation was determined at Rs. 4,09,01,000/-. The assessee has not declared capital gain as he has not filed Return of Income for AY 2009-10. The said property was inherited by the assessee. The assessee has submitted valuation report of the property from Govt. Approved Valuer who has arrived value of property at Rs. 66,61,020 as on 01.04.1981. The value of the assessee's share comes to Rs. 4,16,314. Indexed cost as per section 48 of the Act is worked out at Rs. 24,22,947/-. As per stamp duty authority the assessee's share being 6.25% of sale value in the property comes to Rs. 25,56,310/-. Thus capital gain comes to Rs. 1,33,363/-, which was taxable in the hands of the assessee. The capital gain of Rs. 1,33,363 has now been shown by....