TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of present assessee alone, the Department has taken a different view. The case of the assessee is at par with all the other aforementioned persons. The Revenue should have taken a consistent view while treating the income of assessee which is arising from identical set of facts and from same series of transaction. The ld. DR has not been able to show any distinguishing feature in the case of assessee. The authorities below should have taken a consistent view while treating the income arising from the same series of transaction. It is not the case of Revenue that the assessee has indulged in sale-purchase of land/property on regular basis. The contention of the assessee that the transaction in question was the sole transaction remains un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in nature, therefore gain arising from the transaction is business income of the assessee. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 12-10-2011, the assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the findings of Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Now, the assessee is in second appeal before the Tribunal assailing the findings of First Appellate Authority. 3. Shri S.N. Doshi appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee along with other persons intended to purchase share in land situated at Mundhwa. Separate Development Agreement on identical terms were executed by the vendors Smt. Mangala M. Kharadkar and Mrudula M. Kul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d between the parties to the suit. According to compromise the assessee received ₹ 70,83,334/- from the company for relinquishing his right and interests in the land in question. The assessee offered the said amount as Long Term Capital Gain in his return of income and further claimed deduction u/s. 54F with the intention to purchase residential house. However, the assessee could not purchase residential house before the due date of filing of return. In order to claim the benefit of section 54F, the assessee deposited ₹ 60,50,000/- in Capital Gain Deposit Account. The assessee could not purchase residential house even thereafter within the stipulated period, therefore, the assessee withdrew the claim of exemption and offered the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of CIT Vs. Anil Kumar reported as 56 DTR 384 (Karnataka) and in the case of J.K. Kashyap Vs. DCIT reported as 302 ITR 255 (Delhi). 3.4 The ld. AR further contended that all the other persons with whom development agreements on similar lines were executed by the vendors of the land in their respective return of income have declared the amount as capital gain and the same has been accepted by the Department. It is only in the case of assessee that the Department has raised objection in treating the amount received for relinquishing the rights in land as capital gain. The ld. AR to reinforce his submissions placed on record the assessment order in the case of Shri Amit Vilas Bumb passed u/s. 143(3) dated 29-11-2011 for the assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 1,18,750/- as against the total consideration of ₹ 5,27,000/-. It is an admitted position that the possession of land was never handedover to the assessee or any of the other purchasers. The land was under litigation. The owners of the land subsequently entered into MOU with M/s. Esteem Construction Private Ltd. in respect of same land on as is where as basis. M/s. Esteem Construction Private Ltd. agreed to settle/negotiate with the earlier purchasers of land i.e. assessee and other 11 persons. Since, M/s. Esteem Construction Private Ltd. could not get the possession of land from the secured tenant, the company filed suit for specific performance and permanent injunction in the Civil Court, Pune against the owners of the la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find any reason as to why in the case of present assessee alone, the Department has taken a different view. The case of the assessee is at par with all the other aforementioned persons. The Revenue should have taken a consistent view while treating the income of assessee which is arising from identical set of facts and from same series of transaction. The ld. DR has not been able to show any distinguishing feature in the case of assessee. The authorities below should have taken a consistent view while treating the income arising from the same series of transaction. It is not the case of Revenue that the assessee has indulged in sale-purchase of land/property on regular basis. The contention of the assessee that the transaction in question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
