9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the non-quoting of the DIN number in the Assessment Order was violation of the CBDT Board's circular in Circular No. 19/2019 dated 14.08.2019. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the claim of Long-Term Capital Gains Amounting to Rs. 1,09,87,638/- disregarding the vast submissions made by the appellant. 5. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed." 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee along with the other co-owners had entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) on 11/03/2021 with the builder M/s. Balaji Constructions and handed over the land to the extent of 1,35,461 sq.ft. for the development and construction of flats. As per the JDA, the share of the owners are 39% and the share of the builder is 61%. As per the JDA, the builder should hand over approximately 56 flats to the owners as their respective share for surrendering their rights in the said land. The AO reopened the assessment for the reason that the assessee had entered into the JDA but not filed any return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see's share is only 25% and not 50% since the land owners are 4 persons and further contended that the sale consideration received by the assessee towards his share is also eligible for deduction since the construction has been commenced before the period prescribed under the Act and the entire consideration was invested in the new construction. The Ld.CIT(A) had rejected all the contentions raised by the assessee by holding that the assessee and his brother are having equal rights and absolute title over the property since the official proceedings for converting the land for residential purposes were in the name of the brothers. The Khatha also stood in the name of the assessee as well as his brother. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) relied on the said details available in the JDA as well as in the proceedings made by the authorities and come to the conclusion that the assessee and his brother are the owners and therefore both have equal shares i.e. at 50:50 and on that basis, held that the computation made by the AO is in order. The ld CIT also relied on the valuation report submitted by the Valuation Officer u/s 55A of the Act since the assessee had accepted the valuation fixed by the Valuatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eduction u/s 54 of the Act and prayed to allow the appeal. 7. The Ld.DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and further contended that the Katha stood in the name of the assessee as well as his brother and therefore the assessee is entitled for 50% share in the land given to the builder. The ld DR further submitted that the construction was completed after the period of 3 years and therefore the assessee was not entitled for the relief u/s 54 of the Act and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 8. We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record. 9. The Ld.AR made a submission that they are not pressing ground nos. 1 to 3 and therefore we are not adjudicating the said grounds and dismiss the same as not pressed. 10. Now we adjudicate the other grounds raised in this appeal. In this appeal there are two issues involved. The first issue to be decided is what is the share of the assessee in order to compute the LTCG. The second issue is whether the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 54 of the Act on the ground that the entire sale consideration received are invested in the construction of the new property. 11. We have perused the JDA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... katha in their names and apply for various purposes in connection with the said development or construction of the property. 13. On a careful consideration of the documents enclosed in the paper books, we found that the land belonged to four persons and based on that only the JDA was executed with the builder and after a substantial construction was over, a partition deed was executed between themselves demarcating the properties of each of the owners. The Builder has invested their money and constructed the flats and gave the share of the owners free of cost in lieu of the land given by the owners. We have also perused the unregistered settlement deed and we found that it is an additional document filed by the assessee to show that the property handed over to the builder was jointly owned by the four persons. We are in agreement with the argument that the title of the property cannot be decided on the basis of Khatha as held by the various Courts, when the assessee was able to establish the ownership of the lands by way of JDA and Partition Deed. The mere reliance on the Khatha issued by the authorities is not legally correct. The AO has also not produced any documents to show th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the project with in the period of 3 years then the assessee's contention may be correct. In support of this proposition the assessee also relied on the orders of the Tribunal as well as the High Courts. 15. We have perused the order of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Dilip Ranjrekar reported in (2018) 98 taxmann.com 362 relied on by the assessee in support of their above proposition which was later on affirmed by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, wherein it was held as follows; "It was apparent from facts that non-completion of the construction of the flat by the builder within the stipulated period was beyond the control of the assessee. In view of the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. B.S. Shanthakumari [2015] 60 taxmann.com 74/233 Taxman 347 (Kar.) and CIT v. Sambandam Udaykumar [2012] 19 taxmann.com 17/206 Taxman 150/345 1TR 389 (Kar.) the assessee cannot be denied exemption under section 54 to the extent of investment in the new property, even though the construction of the new asset is not completed within the eligible period of 3 years from the date of sale/transfer of the original asset." 16. The Hon'bl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
