9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 564X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ransfer of Property Act r/w s. 2(47)(v) of the I.T. Act have no application - there was no valid “transfer” of the land during the P.Y. relevant to AY 2007-08 so as to give rise to any income in the form of capital gains – Decided against Revenue. - ITA No. 651/Del/2012 - - - Dated:- 30-5-2014 - Shri S. V. Mehrotra And Shri A. T. Varkey,JJ. For the Appellant : Sh. Y. Kakkar, Sr. DR For the Respondent by: Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. ORDER Per S. V. Mehrotra, A. M. This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-XXXII, New Delhi, dated 08.12.2011 for A.Y. 2007-08. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income declaring total income at Rs. 5,01,100/- for A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9th September, 2006 being the date of receipt of full and final amount of agreed consideration. The AO further observed that the land was purchased by the assessee for a consideration of Rs. 80,400/- on 23/01/1998, Rs. 6,400/- having been spent in addition on stamp duty. He further observed that assessee had claimed Rs. 20,00,000/- as expenses being incurred towards cost of development of land. The AO further pointed out that since the agricultural land sold by the assessee was located well within the Municipal Corporation of Delhi s limit, therefore, the land sold by the assessee was a capital asset and gain arising out of transfer of the same was taxable u/s 45. He further pointed out that as far as assessee s claim of expenditure of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, no sale deed was ever executed. As has been stated by the AR, part of the payment received has also been returned to the said company in a later period. In view of the above position and following the judicial pronouncements cited in foregoing paragraphs, I hold that there was no valid transfer of the impugned land during the P.Y. relevant to A.Y. 2007-08 so as to give rise to any income in the form of capital gains. The Assessing Officer is, therefore, directed to delete then addition made under the head capital gains. (Deleted addition of Rs. 78,23,527/-) 5. At the time of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Department s appeal is only academic in nature because in A.Y. 2008-09, the AO has observed as under: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here was no valid transfer of the impugned land during the previous year relevant to A.Y. 2007-08 so as to give rise to any income in the form of capital gains. Therefore, the addition made under the head capital gain was deleted. The revenue filed an appeal against this order before ld. ITAT vide ITA No. 651/Del/2012. 3. Since the relevant period did not fall in A.Y. 2007-08 because the agreement to sale/purchase was executed on 19.11.2007 i.e. relevant to AY 2008-09, the copy of return electronically filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2008-09 was downloaded from the system and placed on record. Therefore, on this ground the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147/148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. During the course of assessment proceeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
