The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 1834 (Chen-Trib)

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 45

Where AO recorded a statement from purchaser of land wherein on oath, she categorically confirmed that she had paid actual consideration much higher than the amount disclosed by assessee for capital gains purpose from sale of land, therefore, AO rightly adopted said amount as full value of consideration.

Capital gains - Quantum of taxable amount - Allegation towards under reporting of sales consideration as evidenced from agreement for sale of land -

Assessee sold land and prior to date of sale, assessee entered into an agreement for sale, wherein consideration amount was agreed at Rs. 37,92,600 whereas consideration as per registered sale deed was Rs. 19,85,000. Assessee disclosed the capital gains by adopting the sale consideration at Rs. 19,85,000. Sale consideration figure was substituted by AO Rs. 37,92,600 being consideration figure mentioned in agreement for sale. Held: AO recorded a statement from purchaser of land wherein on oath, she categorically confirmed that she had paid actual consideration of Rs. 37,92,600 to assessee in cash in three installments. That fact when confronted with assessee, he was not able to counter the same. Accordingly, AO adopted sale consideration figure of Rs. 37,92,600 as full value of consideration while computing capital gains on transfer of land. CIT(A) upheld action of AO and no infirmity was found in order of CIT(A).

Followed:CIT v. V. Natarajan (2006) 287 ITR 271 (Mad.) : 2007 TaxPub(DT) 0183 (Mad-HC)

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : Against the assessee

A.Y. :



IN THE ITAT, CHENNAI BENCH

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT