Barla Narasinga Rao, , Visakhapatnam V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3), , Visakhapatnam

ITA 436/VIZ/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1973 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 20-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUMAN MALIK
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 50C; 148; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM SMC BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO , HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO S . 436 & 437 / VIZ /201 8 (ASST. YEAR : 20 09 - 1 0 ) 1) BARLA NARASINGA RAO , D.NO. 9 - 41 - 24, NETAJI NAGAR, PITAPURAM COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM PAN NO. ANSPB 4093 K VS. IT O , WARD - 3(3 ), VISAKHAPATNAM. 2) BARLA APPALA RAJU , D.NO. 9 - 41 - 24, NETAJI NAGAR, PITAPURAM COLONY, A.U. ENGINEERING GROUND, VISAKHAPATNAM . PAN NO. ANSPB 4087 D (APPELLANT S ) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI G.V.N. HARI ADV OCATE . DEPARTMENT BY : SMT. SUMAN MALIK SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 24 / 0 6 /201 9 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 / 0 6 /201 9 . O R D E R THESE APPEAL S BY THE DIFFERENT ASSESSEE S ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER S OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 10 , HYDERABAD , BOTH DATED 14 /0 6 /201 8 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 9 - 1 0 . SINCE FACTS AND ISSUES ARE COMMON, CLUBBED AND HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER . 2 ITA NO S . 436 & 437/VIZ/2018 ( BARLA NARASINGA RAO & ANO. ) 2. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED TH A T AS PER CIB INFORMATION , THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THREE OTHERS HAS SOLD AN IMM OVABLE PROPERTY FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.2,81,000 / - , WHEREAS THE SRO VALUE OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY WAS RS. 28,10,000/ - . AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C , THE MARKET VALUE HAS TO BE ADOPTED AS DEEMED CONSIDERATION FOR DETERMINING THE CAPITAL GAINS. HENCE, A LETTER WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ASKING HIM TO FURNISH THE INFORMATION WITH REGARD TO FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME , INCIDENCE OF CAPITAL GAINS IN RESPECT OF SALE OF THE SAID PROPERTY . IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS LETTER , S TATED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS TRANSFERRED TO HIS BROTHERS SON BY FOUR PARTIES AND NO CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED. HOWEVER, IT WAS NOTICED THAT AS PER THE AGREEMENT RS.28,10,000/ - WAS PAID TO THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH OTHERS. THEREFORE, IT WAS PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFFERED THE CAPITAL GAINS ACCORDING TO THE PROVIS I ONS OF SECTION 50C, HENCE, A NOTICE U/SEC. 148 WAS ISS U ED . IN REPLY, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A PARTITION BETWEEN THE ASSES SEE AND THE OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS AND THE PAR TI TION DEED WAS ERRONEOUSLY MENTIONED AS A SALE DEED DUE TO LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OR EDUC A TION OF THE ASSESSEE AS HE WAS ONLY A DRIVER. IT WAS NOTICED FROM THE SALE DOCUMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH OTHERS HAD R ECEIVED SALE 3 ITA NO S . 436 & 437/VIZ/2018 ( BARLA NARASINGA RAO & ANO. ) CONSIDERATION THR O UGH CASH . T HEREFORE, ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED AND IT IS DEEMED THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED 1/4 TH OF THE SALE PROCEEDS RS. 7,02,500/ - AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE COST OF ACQUISITION , THE ASSESSEES SHARE OF RS. 5,34,337/ - IS DETERMINED AS A LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF THE ASSESSEE. 3 . ON APPEAL, LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. EVEN BEFORE THIS BENCH , THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE THAT THERE IS A FAMILY SETTLEMENT AND PAR TI TION HAS TAKEN PLACE . I FIND THAT IT IS ONLY A SALE TRANSACTION AND THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE AMOUNT ALONG WITH OTHERS AS PER SALE AGREEMENT DATED 31/10/2008. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY DETERMINED THE CAPITAL GAINS AND IS CONFI RMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). I FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THUS, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 4 . SO FAR AS ITA NO.437/VIZ/2018 IS CONCERNED, THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS INVOLVED IN ITA NO. 436/VIZ/2018, THEREFORE, THE DECISION IN ITA NO. 436/VIZ/2018 SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO THIS APPEAL ALSO. 4 ITA NO S . 436 & 437/VIZ/2018 ( BARLA NARASINGA RAO & ANO. ) 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEES ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON TH IS 2 8 T H DAY OF JUNE , 201 9 . S D / - ( V. DURGA RAO ) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 2 8 T H JUNE , 201 9 . VR/ - COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE A) BARLA NARASINGA RAO B) BARLA APPALA RAJU BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF D.NO. 9 - 41 - 24, NETAJI NAGAR, PITAPURAM COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM 2. THE REVENUE ITO, WARD - 3(3), VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. THE PR. CIT - 1, VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. THE CIT(A) - 10, HYDERABAD. 5. THE D.R . , VISAKHAPATNAM. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER (VUKKEM RAMBABU) SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM.