Case Law Details
Atluri Usha Rani Vs Asst. CIT (ITAT Hyderabad)
I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the record. I have also carefully perused the development agreement-cum-GPA. The said agreement shows that the builders and developers have to bear all the expenditure for preparation of the said plan, obtaining licenses, permissions as well as execution of work and thereafter the parties / land owners are entitled to 50% of the built up area; This shows that the assessees are merely entitled to a specified constructed space and not 50% of the land. The builders have taken over the possession of the entire land and in lieu thereof assessee was entitled to get only 2845.15 sft. It is also not in dispute that as per the developer, vide letter dated 06.01.2015, cost of construction was Rs. 1,450/- per sft but as per the registered document, for the purpose of allotting the constructed place, the cost of construction is mentioned at Rs. 1,083/- per sft (1,108/- in the case of Smt. Usha Rani) and therefore, A.O. as well as Ld. CIT(A) have taken that figure as the value obtained by the assessee in lieu of transfer of the land. A transfer can be said to have taken place in the year when the possession was handed over by the assessee, as per the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court (supra). Thus, capital gains tax, if any, is attracted in the year of agreement and not in the later years. Since the developer has agreed to pay the assessee at the rate of Rs. 1,083/- per sft it is not appropriate to claim that only SRO value has to be adopted. If the assessee, purchased a land and the purchase consideration is not provided clearly, SRO value as per the Act as on specified date could have been taken into consideration whereas in the instant case the rate is specified by both the parties. Moreover we are not concerned with purchase cost. Under these circumstances, I am of the firm view that the concurrent findings of the A.O. as well as the Ld. CIT(A) do not call for any interference.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT
Since the issue involved in both these appeals is identical, I proceed to dispose of these appeals by a combined order, for the sake of convenience.
2. At the outset, it may be noticed that the appeal filed by Smt. Atluri Parvathi Devi is barred by limitation at 32 days. The assessee filed an affidavit and also an explanation seeking condonation of delay wherein it was stated that though instructions were given to the Counsel to file a further appeal, it was not followed up, under the impression that signatures are not required on any other paper since authorisation was given to the Counsel. Later on, when she called up Counsel to check up the status of the appeal, the Counsel informed that appeal could not be filed for want of signatures. Thereafter, immediate steps were taken to file the appeal. The delay was on account of ignorance of the procedure and thus submitted that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
