M/s. Jai Kumar Chawla HUF, Indore V. The ITO Ward 1(1), Indore

ITA 323/IND/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 32322714 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 20-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G S GAUTAM
• Assessee Lawyers: S S SHEETAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 323/IND/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 JAI KUMAR CHAWLA HUF INDORE PAN AABHC 9476M :: APPELLANT VS INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1) INDORE :: RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SHRI S.S. SHEETAL RESPONDENT BY SHRI G.S.GAUTAM DATE OF HEARING 21.082013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21.08.2013 O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH , JUDICIAL MEMBER THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER D ATED 20.2.2013 OF THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE ONLY GROUND AGITATED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE PERTAINS 2 TO CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,25,000/- MADE O N ACCOUNT OF REGISTRATION/STAMP DUTY CHARGES BORNE BY THE ASSESS EE. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE IS THAT THE STAMP CHARGES WERE BORNE BY THE ASSESSEE H IMSELF FOR WHICH OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO THE SALE DEED (P ARA 10 PAGE 9 OF THE PAPER BOOK) AS PER WHICH THE REGISTRATION CH ARGES WERE AGREED TO BE BORNE BY THE SELLER. IT WAS ALSO PLEA DED THAT THE SOURCE OF REGISTRATION IS ALSO EXPLAINABLE FOR WHIC H OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PAGE 13 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ON THE OT HER HAND, THE LEARNED SENIOR DR CONTENDED THAT NORMALLY THE REGIS TRATION CHARGES ARE BORNE BY THE PURCHASER AND THE SOURCE O F THE REGISTRATION CHARGES WAS ALSO NOT EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE DECLARED INCOME OF RS. 1,08,690/- IN ITS R ETURN FILED ON 2 ND AUGUST, 2008. WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN, T HE ASSESSEE CLAIMED REGISTRY AND STAMP EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,25,000/- THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY SUCH EX PENSES MAY NOT BE DISALLOWED AS NORMALLY REGISTRATION CHARGES ARE BORNE BY THE PURCHASER. THE ASSESSEE VIDE REPLY DATED 15.12. 2010 CLAIMED 3 THAT EVEN AS PER THE SALE DEED SUCH EXPENSES ARE TO BE BORNE BY THE SELLER. THIS REPLY WAS HELD TO BE COLOURABLE D EVICE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND THUS DID NOT ALLOW TH E IMPUGNED AMOUNT FOR COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN. ON APPEAL THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFFIRMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH IS UNDER CHALLENGE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORD MOR E SPECIFICALLY THE SALE DEED WHEREIN VIDE PARA 10 (PAGE 9 OF THE P APER BOOK) IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY AGREED UPON BY THE PARTIES THAT TH E REGISTRATION CHARGES, ETC. ARE TO BE BORNE BY THE SELLER. THE A SSESSEE WITH THE HELP OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ALSO EXPLAINED THE SOU RCE OF THE DISPUTED AMOUNT. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, IT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A COLOURABLE DEVICE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GONE BY THE NORMAL PRACTICE AND HAS NOT ADDUCED ANY EVIDENCE CONTRAVENING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE REG ARDING THE TERMS OF SALE DEED OR SOURCE OF THE DISPUTED AMOUNT . WE FURTHER NOTE THAT THE SALE DEED HAS BEEN ENTERED BETWEEN AL TOGETHER UNCONCERNED PERSONS AND IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT SUCH CONDITION WAS ENSHRINED SIMPLY TO BENEFIT THE CLOSE RELATIVE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 4 3. GROUND NO. 2 CONFIRMING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 50C WAS NOT PRESSED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE , THEREFORE, IT IS DISMISSED AS SUCH. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 21.8.2013. SD SD (R.C.SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL ME MBER DATED: 23.8.2013 COPY TO: APPELLANT, RESPONDENT, CIT, CIT(A), DR, GU ARD FILE DN/-2121 2323