9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 871X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of the said agreement itself. Therefore, the respective CIT (A) s in the case of Smt. Devi Reddy Renuka and Smt. Nallapattu Saraswati have held that the assessees therein are deemed to have acquired the property on the date of development agreement itself and thus, the period of holding has to be held to be more than 3 years. In the case of coowners, the Revenue cannot take a different stand. If the Revenue has accepted the decision of the CIT (A) s, in the cases of Renuka and Saraswati, we are of the opinion that the same decision has to be taken in the case of the assessees before this Tribunal also. Therefore, by adopting the principles of consistency and uniformity, I hold that the exemption u/s 54F cannot be withdrawn in the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilder is 35:65. In respect thereof, Smt. Lakshmi was to receive 3 flats + 75% share in the fourth flat and Kaushik Routhu was to receive one flat + 25% in the fourth flat. Smt. Renuka Devi and Smt. Nallapattu Saraswati were to receive two flats each and 50% each in the third flat. The specific flats allotted to each of the landowner is also part of the development agreement. The assessees did not file their returns of income for the relevant A.Ys. When the Assessing Officer came to know about the development agreement, notices u/s 148 were issued to each of the assessees. The assessees filed their returns of income declaring the Long-Term Capital Gain arising out of the development agreement and claimed the same as exempt u/s 54F of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubstantially in the A.Y 2013-14. Aggrieved, both the assessees preferred appeals before the CIT (A) and the CIT (A) confirmed the assessment order and the assessees are in second appeal before the Tribunal. Since the ground of appeal in all the three appeals are similar, the grounds of appeal in ITA No.571/Hyd/2020 are reproduced hereunder: 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing officer of ₹ 28,98,425/- by applying the provisions of Sec.54F(3) of the I.T. Act. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have considered the fact that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttu Saraswati, the respective CIT (A)s have held the issue in favour of the assessees and the Revenue has not filed any appeals to the Tribunal. Therefore, according to her, the rule of uniformity and consistency has to be adopted and the same decision is to be taken in the case of the present assessees as well. 4. The learned DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below. 5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record and having gone through the Development Agreement cum GPA, I find that the assessees have given their landed property for development and their share of flats have been identified and allotted by way of the said agreement itself. Therefore, the respective CIT (A) s in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
