9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stical purposes. - ITA No. 4942/Mum/2016 - - - Dated:- 15-6-2021 - Shri Mahavir Singh, VP And Shri M. Balaganesh, AM For the Appellant : Shri Bimlendu Bhujhan, AR For the Respondent : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, DR ORDER PER M. BALAGANESH, AM: This appeal of assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)]-2, Thane [in short CIT(A)], dated 30.05.2016. The assessment was framed by the ITO, Ward-2, Panvel (in short ITO/ AO) for the A.Y. 2011-12 vide order dated 10.03.2015 under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act ). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The Learned CIT (Appeal), Ward -2, Thane has erred in assessing the total income of Shri Narottarn Manjibhai Patel ( the Appellant ) at ₹ 2,09,98,370/- for A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Learned CIT (Appeal) has erred in not considering that due to revenue laws pertaining towards acquisition of agricultural land in India, the RMP Infotech Pvt. Ltd. ( the Company ) authorized the Appellant to Purchase land on behalf of the Company. 3. The Learned CIT (Appeal) has erred in not considering that-all the funds for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed towards non agricultural land would not be considered as transfer in the hands of' above mentioned Appellant. 8. The Learned CIT (Appeal) has failed to take into account the updated 7/12 extract of each land submitted by the Appellant during the course of assessment proceedings which clearly show the Agricultural and Non-agricultural nature of each land. 9. The Learned CIT (Appeal) has erred in considering explanations and submissions of the Appellant w.r.t. Agricultural Land. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that assessee is an individual deriving rental income and interest income. We find that the assessee had sold one property along with two others for a total consideration of ₹85,00,000/- for which, corresponding value as per section 50C of the Act was ₹1,48,55,000/-. The proportionate consideration received for the assessee is worked out at ₹53,27,732/- and the proportionate value as per Section 50C of the Act is worked out at ₹93,29,798/-. We find that the learned Assessing Officer after giving deduction for indexed cost of acquisition arrived at the long term capita ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... land by our client as entire land were acquired by the company out of his own funds. Further, as observed in the case of Income Tax Officer Vs. Navbharat Potteries (P) Ltd., it is held by ITAT Bombay that promoter acquired land on behalf of the company before its incorporation and subsequently such purchase was ratified by the Board of Directors after incorporation, of the company. The said land was shown in the balance sheet of the company as belonging to it from the very beginning and assessed to wealth tax in company's hands, company was entitled to adopt cost of acquisition of the kind for purposes of capital gains . Further it is also said that Any property purchased by the promoter for the benefit of the company gets impressed with the ownership of the company if it assets subsequently to the promoter's act in the purchase. Considering the above facts of the case and the decision of the Bombay ITAT Bench in the case of Income Tax Officer N. Navbharat Potteries (P). Ltd, we whereby state that the said sale deed executed towards non agricultural land would not be considered as transfer in the hands of our above mentioned client. 5. The learned CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... land, as above, but did not offer any income there from, with the plea that the same were purchased on behalf of M/s RMP Infotech Pvt. Ltd. and he was not real owner of the same. It was further claimed that as per the terms of agreement between company and the appellant, the appellant had acquired various pieces of agricultural land, converted the same in to Non Agricultural land and subsequently sold the same to M/s Sakarlal Balabhai Co. Ltd and M/s Raigad Realtors Developers Ltd. The Assessing Officer did not accept the contention of the appellant and resorted to compute the capital gains, as above and added the same to the income of the appellant. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant withdraw the above stand, but stated that 1) Land being agricultural land, hence the sale proceeds/ gain is not taxable and 2) In respect of NA land, the Assessing Officer has taken the value of sale consideration, for determining capital gain, as per provisions of Sec 50C of the Act, at higher side. 6.1 During the course of appellate proceedings, the Ld AR was required to establish the fact that the land under question was an agricultural land, by furnishing the deta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
