2014 (12) TMI 1277 - AT - Income Tax

Assessment of income in the hands of the director of the company - Short Term Capital Gain - sale of land - whether land was in the name of the Director which was subsequently transferred in the name of the company i.e. M/s GFFR Pvt. Ltd.? - Held that - The agricultural land was purchased on behalf of the company in the name of the director which has been reflected in the balance sheet of the company M/s GFFR Pvt. Ltd. as on 31/3/2008. The property was also sold through director on behalf of the company and short term capital gain has been shown in the return of the company. Therefore there is no logic to assess the same in the income in the hands of the director of the company. Accordingly we confirm the order of the learned CIT(A). - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal against deletion of Short Term Capital Gain addition by Assessing Officer.

Analysis:
1. The Assessing Officer added Short Term Capital Gain of Rs. 1,23,47,880/- in the income of the assessee due to the sale of immovable property. The assessee, a director, was deemed the owner of the property despite it being purchased on behalf of M/s Grass Field Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer held that the capital gain was short term and added it to the income.

2. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal, noting that the land transaction was part of a surrender by M/s GFFR Pvt. Ltd. and the subsequent sale by the company. The CIT(A) emphasized that the company had accepted the profits from the land sale, and no action was initiated against the company for the same transaction. Therefore, treating the gain as short term capital gain in the director's hands would result in double addition, which is impermissible under tax law.

3. The Revenue appealed, arguing that the land was initially in the director's name and later transferred to the company. The Revenue sought reinstatement of the Assessing Officer's order.

4. The assessee's representative contended that the land transactions were duly recorded in the company's books, and the profits were offered for tax by the company. The representative emphasized that the company, not the director, was the beneficial owner of the land, as evidenced by the company's actions and records.

5. The ITAT Jaipur upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the land was purchased and sold on behalf of the company, with the capital gain reflected in the company's return. Therefore, assessing the gain in the director's income was unwarranted. The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming the CIT(A)'s order.

In conclusion, the ITAT Jaipur ruled in favor of the assessee, highlighting that the land transactions were conducted on behalf of the company, and the capital gain was appropriately accounted for in the company's books. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering the beneficial owner for tax purposes and rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the Short Term Capital Gain addition in the director's income.