Police Lakshma Reddy , Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(4), Hyderabad

ITA 807/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0321 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-01-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 16-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Revision of order; Capital Gains
• Section: 263; 50C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad (Through Video Conferencing) Before Shri A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member AND Shri S.S. Godara, Judicial Member ITA No.797/Hyd/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Police Jagadish Reddy, Hyderabad. PAN : APOPP6835M. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 11(4), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.798/Hyd/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Police Paramesh Reddy, Hyderabad. PAN : AUZPP5632N. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 11(4), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.807/Hyd/2019 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Police Lakshma Reddy, Hyderabad. PAN : BDVPP6173L Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 11(4), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: None Revenue by : Dr. Rajendra Kumar Date of hearing: 05/01/2022 Date of pronouncement: 11/01/2022 ITA Nos.797, 798 and 807/Hyd/2019 2 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. These three assessees’ appeals for A.Y. 2012-13 arise against the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Hyderabad’s separate orders; all dated 22.03.2019, involving proceedings u/s 263 of the I.T. Act. Cases called twice. None appears at the assessees’ behest. They are accordingly proceeded exparte. 2. We note with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that all these three instant cases involving identical factual backdrop wherein the assessees before us seek to reverse the PCIT’s revision directions terming the corresponding assessments framed on 30.12.2016 as erroneous ones causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue as the latter authority had allegedly failed in not making section 50C addition of capital gains. 3. There is hardly any dispute that these assessees had infact sold / transferred the relevant capital asset on 27.06.2011 which has triggered the instant lis. It is further an admitted fact that they had received cheque(s) of Rs.30 lakhs on 25.04.2008 which stood duly accounted for in the foregoing sale deed followed by further payment of Rs.2.70 crore. And also that the Sub-Registrar had adopted stamp value of the capital asset as Rs.5,66,28,000/- as on 27.06.2011. ITA Nos.797, 798 and 807/Hyd/2019 3 4. It further emerges on a perusal of the case files that the Assessing Officer had accepted the assessees’ contentions that section 50C(1). (First and second proviso inserted by the Finance Act, 2016 w.e.f. 01.04.2017) infact carried retrospective effect as per the tribunal’s decision in Dharmashibhai Sonani Vs. ACIT (2016) 75 taxmann.com 141 and therefore, only the sale consideration as on the date of first agreement (supra) had to be adopted as the fair market value. It is the assessment findings accepting the assessees’ side to this effect which stand revised in the PCIT’s revision directions under challenge that there was no indication of any oral agreement in April 2008 and the above statutory provision nowhere carried retrospective effect. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to Revenue’s vehement contentions supporting the PCIT’s revision directions and find no merit therein. It is made clear that once the assessees’ part sale consideration of Rs.30 lakhs has accepted, the necessary consequence is that all these assessees / vendors had duly entered into agreement in the said earlier assessment year only and thus covered under sec 50C(1) first and 2 nd proviso held to be retrospective in the tribunal’s order. We therefore conclude that the PCIT’s revision directions have erred in law and on facts in treating the corresponding assessments as erroneous ones causing prejudice to the interest of Revenue in light of hon’ble apex court’s decision in M/s Malabar Industries Co., Vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC). The same stand reversed. ITA Nos.797, 798 and 807/Hyd/2019 4 6. These three assessees’ appeals are allowed in above terms. A copy of the common order be placed in respective case files. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 11 th January, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (S.S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 11 th January, 2022. TYNM/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Sri Police Jagadish Reddy, Plot No.3-71, Bowrampet, Quthubullapur Mandal, Hyderabad – 501505. 2 Sri Police Paramesh Reddy, Plot No.3-71, Bowrampet, Quthubullapur Mandal, Hyderabad – 501505. 3 Sri Police Lakshma Reddy, Plot No.3-71, Bowrampet, Quthubullapur Mandal, Hyderabad – 501505. 4 The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 11(4), Hyderabad 5 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax – 5, Hyderabad. 6 The ACIT, Range – 11, Hyderabad 7 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 8 Guard File By Order