Sh. Ghasitu Ram, Yamunanagar V. ITO, Ward -4, Yamunanagar

ITA 98/CHANDI/2023

AI Insights

The case revolves around the taxability of an alleged sale consideration of Rs. 30 lacs as capital gains, which was purportedly received by the assessee, Shri Ghasitu Ram, from his daughter upon the transfer of property. The Assessing Officer (AO) considered the property valued at Rs. 30 lacs based on the Stamp Duty assessed by the Registering Authority and taxed it accordingly. However, the assessee contended that the property was HUF property transferred without any consideration, a fact also recorded in the Transfer Deed. The Tribunal examined the circumstances of the property transfer, including a family arrangement and subsequent court orders that divided the property among the assessee's children. The Tribunal concluded that the transfer was not a sale but a familial arrangement, and thus, no capital gains tax was applicable.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 127556 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-06-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 31-05-2023
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Capital Gains

Judgement Text

आयकर अपील य अ धकरण,च डीगढ़ यायपीठ “एस.एम.सी” , च डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “S.M.C”, CHANDIGARH ी संजय गग , या यक सद!य BEFORE: SHRI. SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 98/Chd/ 2023 नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shri Ghasitu Ram, Village – Manakpur, Tehsil-Jagadhari, Distt. Yamunanagar. बनाम The ITO, Ward – 4, Yamunanagar. थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ATZPR0818H अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent नधा रती क! ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज व क! ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR स ु नवाई क! तार&ख/Date of Hearing : 01.06.2023 उदघोषणा क! तार&ख/Date of Pronouncement : 02.06.2023 आदेश/Order PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 30.12.2022 pertaining to Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The sole issue raised in this appeal is relating to taxability of the alleged sale consideration of Rs.30 lacs as capital gains alleged to have been received by the assessee from his daughter on transfer of the property. 3. The AO noticed that as per the Stamp Duty assessed by the Registering Authority, the value of the land was at Rs.30 lacs. He, therefore, held that the aforesaid amount was liable to capital gains ITA 98/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2007-08 Page 2 of 4 tax. However, the plea of the assessee has been that the said land was HUF Property and that the land was transferred by the assessee without any consideration. That this fact was also mentioned in the Transfer Deed itself that no consideration has been received by the assessee. The ld. counsel has further submitted that even the said transfer of the property by the assessee to his daughter was challenged by the other two sons of the assessee and ultimately on the decision of the Court, 2/3 rd of the land was transferred by the daughter of the assessee to her brothers. That the ld. counsel has submitted that the entire transfer was a family arrangement of the inheritance of the ancestral land/HUF property of the assessee, which has been transferred by him to his children without any consideration. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has further submitted that based on the submissions of the assessee, a remand report was also called upon by the CIT(A) from the Assessing Officer (in short ‘the AO’ ) wherein the AO has also confirmed that on perusal of bank account statement, no transaction of Rs.30 lacs had been made through the said account. The fact that the said land was further divided equally amongst all the brothers and sister on Court orders, has also been confirmed by the AO. 4. The ld. DR could not rebut the aforesaid facts of the case. ITA 98/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2007-08 Page 3 of 4 5. After considering the rival submissions and going through the record, I find that it is not a case of transfer of land for consideration, rather, the assessee, to avoid future disputes amongst his children has transferred the land in the name of his daughter by way of Registered Deed without any consideration. However, the sons of the assessee disputed the said transfer of land being a HUF property, which plea of them was accepted by the Court and thereafter, the land was equally distributed amongst all the three children of the assessee with 1/3 rd share each. 6. In view of this, the action of the lower authorities in assuming the sale consideration at Rs.30 lacs and thereby, taxing the same, cannot be held to be justified, especially when there is no consideration passed on the transfer of land by the assessee to his children. 7. In view of this, the addition made by the lower authorities is not sustainable and the same is, accordingly, ordered to be deleted. 8. The appeal stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 02.06.2023. Sd/- संजय गग (SANJAY GARG) या यक सद!य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA 98/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2007-08 Page 4 of 4 ‘Poonam’ आदेश क! त,ल-प अ.े-षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. यथ / The Respondent 3. आयकर आय ु /त/ CIT 4. -वभागीय त न2ध, आयकर अपील&य आ2धकरण, च5डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड फाईल/ Guard File आदेशान ु सार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar