TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or ₹ 1,51,80,000 where also the assessee executed sale deed as an agent for and on behalf of M/s. Grass Field Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and even the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal have found that the sale amount is duly recorded in the books of M/s. Grass Field Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. It is also a fact that even a certificate of the company was placed on record confirming ownership of the land before the Assessing Officer himself. There can be no two owners and in the instant case, from the material placed by the assessee and considered by both the appellate authorities, it clearly proves that the assessee being a director executed title deeds for and on behalf of M/s. Grass Field Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and the beneficial owner for all practical purposes was the limited company which had even paid due taxes later on at the time when the property was sold. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Income Tax Appeal No. 70 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 11-7-2016 - Ajay Rastogi And J. K. Ranka, JJ. For the Appellant : Anuroop Singhi For the Respondent : -- JUDGMENT J. K. Ranka, J. 1. The instant income tax appeal under section 260 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot satisfied and inter alia brought to tax the resultant difference of ₹ 1,23,47,880 as a short- term capital gains. 4. The said assessment was assailed before the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) (for short, CIT(A) ) reiterating the same facts and bringing to notice of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) the fact that the entire transaction was duly recorded in the books of account of the limited company. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepted contention of the assessee and deleted the addition holding that the land has been consistently shown in the books of the company M/s. Grass Field Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. in which the assessee was a director and even in the case of company, no finding was given that this land did not belong to the company. 5. A further appeal by the Revenue before the Tribunal, the same also resulted in dismissal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that sale deed was in the name of the assessee and even in the sale deed, there was no mention as to the assessee having purchased for and on behalf of M/s. Grass Field Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and no proper information was placed on record by the assessee be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. sold this land to another limited company namely; Grass Field Fire Capital Developers Private Limited on August 5, 2008 for ₹ 1,51,80,000 where also the assessee executed sale deed as an agent for and on behalf of M/s. Grass Field Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and even the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal have found that the sale amount is duly recorded in the books of M/s. Grass Field Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. It is also a fact that even a certificate of the company was placed on record confirming ownership of the land before the Assessing Officer himself. 9. After analysing the material on record, the appellate authorities found that a survey operation was carried at the business premises of M/s. Grass Field Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. from February 26, 2008 to February 28, 2008 where certain incriminating documents were found regarding payments made that were not accounted for in the regular books of account of the company and such land transactions were inventorised along with the details of particulars of the land, seller's name, registration number, purchase value, market value and final value and on the basis of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and is using the same for the purposes of his business or profession. Assigning any different meaning would not subserve the legislative intent. To take the case at hand it is the appellant-assessee who having paid part of the price, has been placed in possession of the houses as an owner and is using the buildings for the purpose of its business in its own right. Still the assessee has been denied the benefit of section 32. On the other hand, the Housing Board would be denied the benefit of section 32 because in spite of its being the legal owner it was not using the building for its business or profession. We do not think such a bene fit-to-none situation could have been intended by the Legislature. The finding of fact arrived at in the case at hand is that though a document of title was not executed by the Housing Board in favour of the assessee, but the houses were allotted to the assessee by the Housing Board, part payment received and possession delivered so as to confer dominion over the property on the assessee whereafter the assessee had in its own right allotted the quarters to the staff and they were being actually used by the staff of the assessee. It is common knowledg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
