9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1624X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xtinguishment of any rights therein . This clause clearly applies on the facts of the case in hand. Since the transfer has taken place in the year 2004, basis of charge i.e. 45(1) arose in the year 2004 as the said provision as well as any profits or gains arising from transfer of capital asset effected in the previous year shall be chargeable to income tax under the head capital gain and shall be deemed to be income as previous year in which transfer took place. Since the transfer has taken place in the year 2004, capital gains tax liability, if any, arose in that year. We, therefore, do not find any error or infirmity in the findings of the CIT(A). Long term capital gain liability, as determined by the Assessing Officer is 99.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment proceedings, the appellant failed to file any detail of the purchase of the property. 5. The Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate the fact that it is the owner of the property who can sell the same. Before becoming the owner of a property, the same cannot be sold. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that as per information with regard to sale of property for a consideration of ₹ 99.20 lakhs, the Assessing Officer selected the return of income for scrutiny assessment. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to explain the source of investment in the said property. 4. The assessee replied that it had executed an agreement to sell on 28.12.2004 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter considering the facts and submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the impugned addition by holding as under: I have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant, the observations made by the A.O. in the Assessment Order and the facts of the case. The appellant was allotted a residential plot on 19.01.2004 in Sector-105, Noida through lottery on payment of allotment money of ₹ 1,30.000/-. The total purchase price of the plot was ₹ 16,75,000/-. The appellant on 28.02.2004 entered into an Agreement to sell in respect of this plot with M/s Rosebud Construction Pvt. Ltd through its director Sh. Rajeev Sharma. The appellant received an amount of ₹ 1,30,000/- from the company in lieu of agr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld rights in favour of the company M/s Rosebud Construction Pvt. Ltd. and not the appellant. The appellant s name in the deed of Transfer of lease hold rights was mentioned only because the original allotment was in his name. Therefore, as far as the appellant is concerned, he did not have ownership of the said property during the year under consideration and therefore, there is no question of any transaction of sale of the said property during the year under consideration. Therefore, there was no question of any capital gains in the appellant's hands. The addition of ₹ 99,20,000/- made by the A.O. on this account is therefore, deleted. 9. Before us, the ld. DR strongly relied on the findings of the Assessing Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transfer took place. 14. Since the transfer has taken place in the year 2004, capital gains tax liability, if any, arose in that year. We, therefore, do not find any error or infirmity in the findings of the ld. CIT(A). 15. For the sake of completeness, the long term capital gain liability, as determined by the Assessing Officer is 99.20 lakhs, 20% of tax on which comes to ₹ 19.84 lakhs. Therefore, this appeal by the Revenue is also hit by the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018 by which the Board has revised the monetary limit for filing of appeals by the department before the ITAT and the monetary limit has been fixed at ₹ 20 lakhs. The Board at Clause 13 of the said Circular has clarified as u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
