2014 (12) TMI 88 - 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 Held that - Following the decision in Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4 Versus Shri Manohar Shridhar Patil 2014 (12) TMI 71 - ITAT PUNE wherein it has been 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 - CIT(A) rightly has concluded that 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 thereof 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 capital gains on the sale of land.
2. Ownership of the land in question.
3. Applicability of Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
4. Treatment of the transaction as business income or capital gains.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Assessability of Capital Gains on the Sale of Land:
The primary issue in the appeal was whether the transaction regarding the sale of lands at Survey No. 21/1B and 23/1B, Deolali, District Nashik, should be assessed in the hands of the assessee or M/s Viraj Estates Pvt. Ltd. (VEPL). The Assessing Officer (AO) had initially brought to tax capital gains of Rs. 27,07,137/- in the hands of the assessee. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] held that the transaction was not assessable in the hands of the assessee but in the hands of VEPL. This decision was based on the precedent set in the case of one of the co-owners, Shri Manohar Shridhar Patil, where the Tribunal upheld that the transaction belonged to VEPL.

2. Ownership of the Land in Question:
The CIT(A) noted that the land was acquired by VEPL through agreements dated 05.01.1993. Subsequently, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was entered into on 21.08.2000, where the assessee and two others were to develop the property on behalf of VEPL. The sale deeds executed on 16.09.2000 and 16.12.2000 confirmed that the payments for the land were made by VEPL. The CIT(A) corroborated this with documentary evidence such as bank statements, ledger accounts, and the balance sheet of VEPL, which showed the transactions were recorded in VEPL's books. The Tribunal affirmed these findings, noting no contrary evidence from the Revenue.

3. Applicability of Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The AO had invoked Section 50C, considering the stamp duty value of Rs. 99,66,000/- for computing capital gains. However, the CIT(A) concluded that since the land was purchased and sold on behalf of VEPL and treated as stock-in-trade, the provisions of Section 50C, which apply to capital assets, were not applicable. The Tribunal upheld this view, noting that the transaction was indeed reflected in VEPL's financial statements as business income.

4. Treatment of the Transaction as Business Income or Capital Gains:
The CIT(A) determined that the profit from the sale of the land should be treated as business income of VEPL, not as long-term capital gains in the hands of the assessee. This was based on the fact that the land was shown as stock-in-trade in VEPL's books, and the profits from the sale were included in VEPL's business income. The Tribunal affirmed this conclusion, emphasizing that the CIT(A)'s findings were based on substantial evidence and no material was presented by the Revenue to dispute these findings.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s order that the income arising from the sale of the land was assessable in the hands of VEPL and not the assessee. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s conclusion, which was based on a thorough examination of the facts and documentary evidence. The decision also aligned with the precedent set in the case of the co-owner, Shri Manohar Shridhar Patil. Thus, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.