9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1951X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was no alternative that the assessee how to sell the lands with original owners and therefore, assessee executed the sale deed in favour of purchaser in the capacity of owners and had infer the possession of said land. As correctly appreciated by Ld. CIT(A) that the previous owners of the land after execution of sale deeds in favour of assessee in the year 1998-99 had no locus standi s regards the owner of the land once they had preferred their right title and interest in the said lands in favour of the assessee in the year 1998-99 and till the possession by executing registered sale deed - CIT(A) had correctly concluded that the assessee as Such was the legal owner of both the lands as on execution of sale deed in the year 2012, had ea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Ld. CIT(A) after considering the case of both the parties had party allowed the appeal of assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT (A), the revenue filed the present appeal before under section. 5. The solitary ground raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT (A) in accepting presence of assessee 85 consenter in registered sale deed as transfer by the assessee 6. We have heard the counsels for both the parties and we have also perused the material placed on record, judgment cited by both the parties as well as the orders passed by the revenue authorities, Before we decide the merits of the case, it is necessary to evaluate the orders passed by Ld. CIT (A). Ld. CIT(A) has dealt with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in this regard, has discarded the claim of the ownership of the lands by the assessee. The assessee as per the sale deeds was put in the possession of both the lands in question, The said lands were sold to Shri Navneet Kothari and Nekita Chandak vide sale deed registered on 31.03.2012 for a total consideration of Rs.1,55,00,000/-. Out of the total sale consideration, a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- only was paid directly by the purchasers to the owners of the land from whom the assessee had purchased the said lands and the entire balance amount of Rs.1,25,00,000/- was paid to the assessee by the buyers through the account payee cheque. The amount of Rs.30 lacs, according to the assessee, had been paid to the said owners a5 compensation for executi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al sellers nor brought on record any adverse material evidence to show that the assessee was not in possession of the said lands purchased by him for which mutation entry right could not be transferred in his name due to technical reasons attributable to Land Revenue Laws. There is no dispute that the amount received by the appellant Rs.1,25,00,000/- (excluding the compensatory payment of Rs.30 lacs) is in lieu of transaction of sale the lands in the possession of the appellant. Therefore, prima facie the ld. AO is not justified in treating the assessee as mere consentor and not the owner of the lands in question sold, more particularly when the assessee himself has undisputedly received the substantial amount of Rs.1,25,00,000/- out of tot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... executed the sale deed in favour of purchaser in the capacity of owners and had infer the possession of said land. We also find that CIT(A) after considering the facts of the present case had rightly taken into consideration that the name of the assessee was not mutated, therefore he was not in a position to sell the land in the capacity of seller, therefore because of this technical reasons, the assessee was shown as 'Consentor' in the sale deed executed in respect of both the lands. in lieu of the sale transactions of both the lands sold during the relevant financial year. The assessee being not an agriculturist, he was not eligible to get the mutation entry transferred in his name and consequently in the name of the buyers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of Shrikant R. Sankanwar and Ors vrs. Krishna Balu Naukudkar (equivalent citation 2003(3) Bom CR 45, 2003 (2) Mhlj 276 wherein the identical circumstance had already been decided by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court. 10. While doing so, it was correctly appreciated by Ld. CIT(A) that the previous owners of the land after execution of sale deeds in favour of assessee in the year 1998-99 had no locus standi s regards the owner of the land once they had preferred their right title and interest in the said lands in favour of the assessee in the year 1998-99 and till the possession by executing registered sale deed. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) had correctly concluded that the assessee as Such was the legal owner of both the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
