9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 804X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the assessment by the AO of long term capital gain based on the sale consideration received by the M/S DCPL is concerned , the action of AO is totally wrong and unacceptable especially when the consideration flowed directly to the builder from the purchasers of the flats and nothing was received by the assessee. It is also an undisputed fact that the builder had paid the due taxes on the profits earned by it and income from the same transaction could not be taxed twice firstly in the hands of developers M/.S DCPL who received the consideration actually and second in the hands of the assessee who was just confirming party to the conveyance deed. In our opinion the assessee must be taxed only in respect of the long-term gain on the lump su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is brother as per the agreement between vendors, flat owners and builder in which the builder is only the confirming party and vendors have received the entire sum. 2. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above grounds be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 2.1 The facts in brief are that the assessee filed his return of income at ₹ 1,64,451/- on 12th July 2007 which was revised by the him on 26th July 2007 by declaring an income of 1,64,651/-. The assessee and his brother were co-owners of land admeasuring 54198 Sq Metres having share of 50% each which was leased out by them for 999 years vide agreement dated30.03.1979 to a builder namely Daryani (Indo Saigon) Construction Pvt.Ltd. for a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the flats purchased and car parking area to the builder and he had not received anything out of the said consideration. The said builder had duly paid the income tax on the profits on the sale of flats. The AO rejected the contention of the assessee that the property was leased out to DCPL on 30 March 1979 . The assessee however admitted that he had not paid any tax on the money received upon granting of lease these for 999 years in the financial year 1979-80 which was as good as sale however the assessee continued to be the registered owner of the property . The AO thereafter computed the income from long term gain at ₹ 99,24,008/-and assessed the assessee accordingly. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce deed. 6. Per contra, the AR submitted before us that though the assessee had not paid any tax on the non-refundable compensation/Lease money received for leasing out the land in the AY 1979-80. The assessee did not receive anything out of the sale consideration which accrued directly to the builder M/S DCPL from the sale of flats and parking area through the cooperative society and the said builder had already been assessed to tax on the on the profit resulting from the sale of said flats. The AR finally prayed that the order of CIT be upheld by dismissing the appeal of the revenue. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that the assessee had leased out the land for 999 years for a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved i.e ₹ 12,50,000/- in 1979. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the ordere of CIT(A) and uphold the same. We therefore, direct the AO to take the sale consideration at ₹ 6,25,000/- in the hands of the assessee and tax the long term gain accordingly if any. The appeal of the revenue is dismissed. CO No 129/Mum/2013 8. We have already directed the AO to treat the 50% compensation as consideration for transfer of land in the hands of assessee in ITA No 4518/Mum/2012 and tax the assessee on the capital gain accordingly by upholding the order of ld.CIT(A). Therefore the cross objection as raised becomes infructuous and is dismissed. 9. ITA No:6703/Mum/2013 and CO No:16/Mum/2015: 10. The issue involved in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
