TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 406X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee has stated at bar that assessee is not holding more 9% share in the said company. Hence, provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act is not also applicable. In any case, it is not at all the case of Revenue that sum involved is taxable in the hands of the assessee as deemed dividend. Accordingly, we find that just because out of ignorance the assessee has invested sale proceed in regard on behalf of company capital gain bond to save its perceived capital gain liability, the sum involved cannot become taxable income of the assessee. The Central Board of Direct Tax in its Circular has also reiterated that Officers of the Revenue should not try to later advantage of the ignorance of the Assessee. It is also settled law that an inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder that the assessee received a sum of ₹ 11,00,000/- which represents a portion of sale proceeds of ₹ 35,00,000/- in respect of sale of property belonging to M/s A.R. Pvt. Ltd. 3. For that when the property is admittedly belonged to the a person other than the assessee capital gains, if any, arising out of sale/transfer of the same is assessable in the hands of the owner of the property and not in the hands of the assessee. 4. For that Officers of the department should not take advantage of assessee s bonafide ignorance of law. 5. For that merely because the appellant wrongly offered Capital Gains in his return which is not at all taxable in his hands, the authorities cannot take advantage of the ignorance of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant under the head Income from Other Sources and denying exemption u/s. 54EC. It is seen from the record of the case that the appellant has himself filed return of income showing capital gain of ₹ 11,00,000/-. He had claimed exemption u/s54EC on the aforesaid gain. On the one hand the appellant has claimed exemption u/s. 54EC and on the other hand the Ld. Authorised Representative has argued that no capital gain has accrued in the hands of the appellant. Therefore, there is contradiction in the argument of the Ld. Authorised Representative. In the present case, the relevant previous year is financial year 2006-07. The appellant has retained with him the sale proceed of the property amounting to ₹ 11,00,000/- till date which is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsideration of property sold which belonged to the company in which the assessee is a shareholder and Director. In this connection, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in response to notice issued by the Assessing Officer the purchaser had confirmed that she had purchased the property from the company, i.e. AR Pvt. Ltd. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further contended that there is no dispute that the said property sold belonged to the company in which the assessee is director and shareholder. Ld counsel for the assessee submitted that since the bank account of the company was defunct, the sale proceed were deposited in assessee s bank account. Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that since the sale consideration belonged to the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Moreover, the purchaser on enquiry from AO has confirmed that property purchased by here belonged to the company M/s A.R. Ltd. 9. It is settled law that company is an artificial juridical person which has its own identity and it is taxable as such. Hence, for its property sold it is the company which is taxable and not the assessee who received the money on behalf of the company. Now the Ld. Counsel for the assessee s plea is also cogent that the receipt of sum of money from the company could be taxable in the hands of the assessee who is shareholder and director only under u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. In this regard, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has stated at bar that assessee is not holding more 9% share in the said company. Hence, prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|