P. Madhavi Devi ORDER
P. Madhavi Devi, Member (J)
1. This is assessee's appeal for the AY. 2012-13, directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Hyderabad, dated 29-10-2018.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, did not file any return of income for the relevant assessment year. The Assessing Officer (AO) received information that the assessee has sold a property vide Sale Deed Document No. 1610/2012 registered at SRO, Rajendranagar during the Financial Year 2011-12 for an amount of Rs. 9,90,000/-. The assessee had not offered to tax any capital gains from the said transaction. Therefore, the AO initiated proceedings u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act [Act], after issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, dt. 28-04-2015.
In response to the said notice, the assessee appeared through his representative and submitted the information called-for. The assessee, vide letters dt. 29-02-2016 & 16-05-2016, submitted that the assessee had entered into an Agreement of Sale cum GPA, vide Regd. Document No. 16792/2006, dt. 29-11-2006 in respect of property at H. No. 2-3-190, situated at Upparpally, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District and the sale consideration as mentioned therein at Rs. 5,94,000/- was received in entirety and the possession of the same was also handed over to the transferee of the property, Shri A. Manikyam. It was mentioned that by virtue of the above document, the Vendee became the absolute owner of the property and thereafter, Shri A. Manikyam transferred the said property by way of a registered Sale Deed, vide Document No. 1610/2012, dt. 14-03-2012 to Shri P. Ilaiah, Upperpally and therefore the Vendor was the AGPA-holder and not the assessee herein. Therefore, according to him, there was no transfer of property by the assessee vide Document dt. 14-03-2012 and there was no capital gain which had accrued to the assessee in the light of the said sale transaction.
2.1. The AO, however, did not accept the contentions of assessee and observed that vide the Agreement of Sale cum GPA, the assessee has only appointed his attorney on his behalf to deal with property with the prospective buyers and therefore there is no transfer of property vide AGPA. He held that the transaction vide Sale Deed No. 1610/2012, dt. 14-03-2012 is the transaction resulting in transfer of property by the assessee through his attorney, Shri A. Manikyam. Therefore, he held that the assessee is liable to pay tax on the Long Term Capital Gain. Without giving any credit for cost of acquisition, the AO treated the entire sum of Rs. 9,90,000/- as capital gain and brought the same to tax.
3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who confirmed the order of AO and the assessee is in second appeal before the Tribunal, raising the following Grounds:
"1. The order of the Hon'ble CIT(A) is erroneous in law as well as facts of the case.
2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) ought to have noted that the assessee transferred the said property vide registered document i.e. Sale cum GPA dated 29.11.2006 after accepting consideration and therefore ceased to be the owner of the property.
3. The Hon'ble CIT(A) ought to have noted that the assessee was not a party (signatory) for the document dated 14.03.2012 and therefore there was no capital gain in the hands of the assessee liable for tax as alleged by the assessing officer and confirmed by the Hon'ble CIT(A).
4. The Hon'ble CIT(A) ought to have noted that the assessee received the consideration with regard to Sale cum GPA dated 29.11.2006 at the time of execution of the document and therefore he was not entitled for any further consideration with regard to the document dated 14.03.2012.
5. The Hon'ble CIT(A) ought to have noted that the conclusion arrived at by the assessing officer in the assessment order was against provisions of the Act as well as various judicial decisions with regard to taxation of gain resulted in the light of Sale cum GPA and therefo........