9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 556X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to an agreement for sale of land for ₹ 1,11,25,000/- of M/s Dhara Construction and Dhirajlal PopatlaiTejani and therefore, sale deed was registered by the signatures of two co-owners who received ₹ 11,51,000/- and the sale deed was further counter-signed by the confirming parties who received the balance amount of ₹ 99,74,000/-. In other words there was no loss to the revenue and also the capital gains have been rightly offered by the concerned parties in their returns of income. We therefore, find no reason to interfere with the findings of ld. CIT(A). - Decided against revenue - ITA No.1357/Ahd/2012 - - - Dated:- 4-3-2016 - Shri Rajpal Yadav, JM, Manish Borad, AM. For The Appellant : Smt. Sonia Kumar, Sr.DR For The Respondent : None ORDER PER Manish Borad, Accountant Member. This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order of CIT(A)-V, Surat dated 24.04.2012 in appeal No.CAS/V/180/2010-11 for Asst. Year 2008-09. Assessment was framed on 24.12.2010 by ITO, Ward-8(2), Surat. Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has considered the inval ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. DR heavily relied on the order of Assessing Officer and submitted that as per AIR information assessee sold the plots of land with his co-owner during the year under assessment and has not disclosed any income on this account and, therefore, the order of Assessing Officer should be restored. 6. We find that during the course of appellate proceedings before ld. CIT(A) ld. AR of assessee submitted that assessee executed the registered sale deed of land bearing Survey No. 199/5 and 6, T.P. 49, F.P. 218A and 218B of Katargam vide Registered sale deed dtd. 01 03 2008 and 28.03.2008 for ₹ 36,25,000/- and ₹ 75,00,000/- respectively. The sale deed was executed by assessee and other coowner Becharbhai Jivarajbhai Vastarpara. The appellant claimed that appellant and co-owner Becharbhai Jivarajbhai Vastarpara had entered into Satakhat with four persons namely 1) Gopalbhai Prernjibhai Vastarpara, 2) Jitendrabhai Harjibhai Desai, 3) Babubhai Nagjibhai Gajera and 4) Sureshkumar Babubhai Gajera on 04.03,2005, The land was purchased on 28.02.2005 by the two coowners as an Agriculture land. 6.1 The owners and confirming parti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and, to carry out. the procedure of N.A. before the Collector Surat and to get the plan of building approved on land from Surat Municipal Corporation. All the procedures were completed on 26.03.2007. As per the terms of the Satakhat the payment from confirming parties were made to assessee and other co-owner on 26.03.2007. Accordingly, the Capital gain has been shown in A.Y. 2007-08. As per the terms of Satakhat, assessee and other co-owner are bounded to execute Registered Sa/e Deed in favour of four confirming parties or in favour of any person or concern suggested by four confirming parties without receiving any further consideration. The four confirming parties had executed a cancellation / transfer deed on 21.03.2008 by which the assessee .and other co-owners were required to execute Registered Sale Deeds in favour of Dhara Construction and Dhirajla! Popatlal Tejani to whom land was sold by four confirming parties. The copy of transfer deed dtd. 21.03.2008 is enclosed. 6.5 The assesses had sold the land as per Satakhat dtd. 04.03.2005 to 4 confirming parties and had shown the Capital Gain in A.Y. 2007/08 on sales of land to confirming parties. The copy of Computation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arpara, Jitendrabhai Harjibhai Desai, Babubhai Nagjibhai Gajera Sureshkumar Babubhai Gajera. All the four confirming parties have shown the respective receipts totaling to ₹ 99,74,000/- in their return of income as capital gains. 8. We further find that ld. CIT(A) has observed following while allowing the appeal of assessee Decision: 6. I have gone through the assessment, order and the submission of the appellant. So far as the first ground of appeal related to the addition of ₹ 52,26,735/- on account of Capital Gain is concerned, it is found from the details submitted that the appellant ,and the other co-owner had purchased the land for ₹ 5,85,000/- on 28.02.2005 and had sold the land on 04.03.2005 to four confirming parties and distributed the sale consideration as under :- Receipts of Owners Receipt of Confirming Party Name Amount Name Amount Harijibhai Parsottambhai Vastarpara 575500 Gopalbhai PragjbhaiVastarpara (HUF) 4424000 Becharbhai Jiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shown the long term capital gain in their Return of Income. Thus, the entire Capital Gain whether short term or long term has been taxed in this case of two co-owners and four confirming parties. The only doubt on the part of Assessing Officer is the execution of Registered Sale Deed in favour of Dhara Construction and Dhirajlal Popatlal Tejani by two co-owners when they had transferred their rights by Satakhat dtd. 04.0:5.2005. As per the terms of Satakhat the final sale deed was to be executed in favour of any person as per the instruction of four confirming parties and therefore, they had rightly executed the Registered Sale deed, The payment was made by Dhara Construction to two co-owners who had transferred the same to four confirming parties by banking channel as and when the payment was received in normal course. The land was subject to Water Work Reservation inflicted by State Government in favour of Surat Municipal Corporation, there were pending proceedings for non-agriculture permission and approval of building plan, all to be completed by the four confirming parties who had completed the same on 26.03.2007, made payment on that date to two co -owners and sold the land ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
