9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de no appeal has been preferred by the assessee and, therefore, the Tribunal is right in observing that the issue has been examined and taxed in A.Y.2009-10 on the basis of Banakhat (agreement to sale) dated 24.7.2008. The department has also considered the same as transfer in the Assessment order in A.Y.2009-10.Charging capital gain tax on the very same land on the basis of final execution of sale deed amounts to taxing the same twice over, which is not permissible. - R/TAX APPEAL NO. 605 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 12-12-2022 - HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI And HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT MR KARAN SANGHANI ADVOCATE for MRS KALPANAK RAVAL(1046) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 ORDER ( PER : HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the stated transaction had already been treated as transfer in A.Y.2009-2010 and capital gain earned thereon was brought to tax in hands of the assessee and had been accepted by the assessee also. The CIT (A) also observed that proviso to Section 50C of the Act has been inserted w.e.f. 01.4.2016 and therefore the stamp duty value as on date of entering into agreement to sale/banakath should be treated instead of value on the date of registration of sale deed. CIT (A) thus deleted the addition. 5. Against the order of CIT (A), the revenue preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal confirmed the order passed by CIT (A) and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. Against th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- and, therefore, the Tribunal is in error in treating the date of transfer in the A.Y. 2009-10 instead of A.Y.2013-14 i.e. the year in which the the deed was registered. He further submitted that as mentioned in the agreement for sale the transfer took place without possession and therefore, also the Tribunal is in error in treating the date of transfer in A.Y. 2009-10. In relation to Question B, he submitted that question involving identical issue has been admitted by this court in Tax Appeal No 155 of 2020. 7. It is noticed that the Tribunal deleted the addition by observing as under: It is an admitted fact that the impugned transaction had already been treated as transfer in the hands of the assessee in the year in which the ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .Y.2009-10 had attained finality and against the additions made no appeal has been preferred by the assessee and, therefore, the Tribunal is right in observing that the issue has been examined and taxed in A.Y.2009-10 on the basis of Banakhat (agreement to sale) dated 24.7.2008. The department has also considered the same as transfer in the Assessment order in A.Y.2009-10.Charging capital gain tax on the very same land on the basis of final execution of sale deed amounts to taxing the same twice over, which is not permissible . 9. Therefore, without entering in the controversy involved in Question B, in facts of this case, we could not find any question of law and resultantly present appeal is dismissed. 10. It is once again clarified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
