2014 (12) TMI 71 - AT - Income Tax

Assessability of transaction in respect of sale of lands Co-owner of the land Assessee or M/s Viraj Estates Pvt. Ltd. liable to be taxed Whether the income arising as a result of the Development Agreement dated 30.12.2003 executed by assessee and two others with Shri Rajesh Patharkar is liable to be assessed in the hands of the assessee or not - Held that - The CIT(A) correctly came to conclude that the sale of land was assessable in the hands of the M/s Viraj Estates Pvt. Ltd. and not in the hands of the assessee - CIT(A) rightly accepted the plea of the assessee that the transaction does not belong to the assessee inasmuch as the land has been purchased and sold for and on behalf of VEPL, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case - the sale-deeds showed that payments for acquisition of land were made by VEPL through their bank accounts - payments have been recorded in the books of account of M/s VEPL - in the Balance-Sheet of VEPL, the transaction has been reflected as advances against purchase of land - purchase of land by the assessee and two other co-owners is for and on behalf of the VEPL the land was purchased and sold by the assessee and two other co-owners for and on behalf of VEPL - Therefore, the income was not liable to be assessed in the hands of the assessee thus, the order of the CIT(A) is upheld Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Assessability of income from the sale of land in the hands of the assessee.
2. Applicability of Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Reliance on the decision of CIT(A), Nashik in the case of co-owner Bharat V. Shah.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Assessability of Income from Sale of Land:
The primary issue was whether the income arising from the development agreement dated 30.12.2003, executed by the assessee and two others, should be assessed in the hands of the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) inferred that the assessee earned long-term capital gain from the sale of the property and computed the capital gain at Rs. 26,02,681/-. The assessee contended that the transaction belonged to M/s Viraj Estate Pvt. Ltd. (VEPL) and not to him. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's plea, noting that the land was purchased and sold on behalf of VEPL. The CIT(A) examined various documents, including sale deeds, bank statements, and the balance sheet of VEPL, which confirmed that VEPL made the payments and received the sale proceeds. The CIT(A) concluded that the transaction did not belong to the assessee, and thus the income should not be assessed in his hands. This conclusion was affirmed by the Tribunal, noting that there was no contrary material provided by the Revenue.

2. Applicability of Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The AO applied Section 50C to compute the capital gain, considering the sale consideration at Rs. 99,66,000/-. However, the CIT(A) held that the land in question was 'stock-in-trade' and not a 'capital asset,' making Section 50C inapplicable. The CIT(A) supported this view by referring to the balance sheet of VEPL, where the land was shown as an advance against the purchase of land. The Tribunal affirmed this view, noting that the CIT(A) had provided a detailed factual basis for concluding that the land was stock-in-trade and the income should be assessed as business income, not as long-term capital gain.

3. Reliance on the Decision of CIT(A), Nashik in the Case of Co-owner Bharat V. Shah:
The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in relying on the decision of CIT(A), Nashik in the case of co-owner Bharat V. Shah, which was set aside by the ITAT, Pune. The Tribunal clarified that the CIT(A) had determined the preliminary issue of whether the transaction belonged to the assessee, as required by the Tribunal in the case of Bharat V. Shah. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had addressed the pertinent issue and provided a detailed analysis, which was not negated by the Revenue. Thus, the reliance on the previous decision did not affect the adjudication of the present controversy.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision that the income from the sale of land was not assessable in the hands of the assessee, the land was stock-in-trade, and Section 50C was not applicable. The Tribunal also clarified that the reliance on the previous decision in the case of Bharat V. Shah was not relevant to the present case, as the CIT(A) had addressed the necessary issues comprehensively. The order was pronounced in the open Court on 25th July, 2014.