9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 915X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in A.Y. 2011-12 only. The registration is in April 2011cannot debar the assessee when the assessee has claimed benefit of exemption under Section 54F 54B is in A.Y. 2011-12 itself. The same has not been granted in that particular year. As the assessee has offered his income from Long Term Capital Gain in A.Y. 2011-12 only. These aspects were not taken into account by the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A). Hence, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. - I.T.A. No.205/Ind/2020 - - - Dated:- 21-2-2023 - Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member And Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri Pankaj Shah, C.A. For the Respondent : Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE - JM: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 47) but it is also squarely covered under provision (i), (ii) and (vi) of sec. 2(47). (e) That the AO had erred in non relying on the sale agreement and possession receipt produced by the assessee without bringing any contrary material, other evidence on record and without confronting the buyer of the property. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of appeal. 3. The assessee is an individual and filed return of income declaring income of Rs. 1,76,250/-. As per the information available the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee sold immovable property at Rs. 4,31,75,600/- on 27.04.2011. As per registered deed of the sold property, the same was sold to the M/s. Brilliant Home Pvt. Ltd. Indore. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finally sale deed was executed on 27.04.2011, i.e. just after 26 days from the end of the A.Y. 2011-12, hence in view of Section 2(47) of the Act the Long Term Capital Gain accrued to the assessee in the A.Y. 2011-12. The assessee offered the same in his return of income and claimed exemption under Section 54F 54B out of the Long Term Capital Gain income. The income arising out of sale of urban agricultural land was correctly shown in the A.Y. 2011-12 and the same was assessed by the Assessing Officer. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee produced the necessary documents and the Assessing Officer never doubted or made any adverse remarks in respect of genuineness of these documents. The income for the A.Y. 2011-12 was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f agreement and handing over possession of the property to be taken or retained in the part performance of the contract. The sale agreement was executed by both the parties in the A.Y. 2011-12 and the possession was also given alongwith the part performance of the contract hence the same is required to be taxed in the A.Y. 2011-12 and not in the A.Y. 2012-13. The return income of the assessee was accepted by the Assessing Officer without rejecting the income from Long Term Capital Gain and without denying the exemption claimed under Section 54B 54F. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Mahaveer Kumar Jain vs. CIT (Civil Appeal No. 4166 of 2006 order dated 19.04.2018). The Ld. A.R. further submitted tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Suraj Lamp Industries and Balbir Singh Maini the factual aspect is totally different. The Ld. A.R. in rejoinder further submitted that as regards alternate argument the Assessing Officer had wrongly interpreted Section 2(47)(v) only to deny the exemption claimed under Section 54F 54B. The Ld. A.R. submitted that Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the transaction of the assessee not only falls under provision (v) of Section 2(47) but it is also squarely covered under provision (i), (ii) and (vi) of Section 2(47). 8. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the Ld. A.R. has distinguished the decision in factual aspect that of Balbir Singh Maini and S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
