TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the director of the company. Accordingly, we confirm the order of the learned CIT(A). - Decided against revenue - I.T.A. No. 695/JP/2012 - - - Dated:- 31-12-2014 - R. P. Tolani (Judicial Member) And T. R. Meena (Accountant Member) For the Department : Neena Jeph For the Assessee : P. C. Parwal ORDER T. R. Meena (Accountant Member) This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order dated 18/05/2012 of the learned CIT(A)-I, Jaipur for the A.Y. 2009-10. The sole ground of appeal is against deleting the addition of ₹ 1,23,47,880/- treated as Short Term Capital Gain by the Assessing Officer. 2. The learned Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has income from salary and house property. Return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sset of the company because as per legal documentation, the assessee Mr. Atma Ram Gupta was the owner of the property. Finally, the learned Assessing Officer calculated short term capital gain at ₹ 1,23,47,880/- and added in the income of the assessee. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter before the learned CIT(A), who had allowed the appeal by observing that the survey operations were carried out at the business premises of M/s GFFR Pvt. Ltd. from 26/02/2008 to 28/02/2008. Certain incriminating documents were found regarding payments made that were not accounted for in the regular books of account of the company. Such land transactions were inventorised alongwith the det ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... different hands of the same income which is not permissible under the I.T. law. Therefore, she deleted the addition of ₹ 1,23,47,880/-. 4. Now the revenue is in appeal before us. The learned D.R. vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer and argued that the land was in the name of the Director, which was subsequently transferred in the name of the company i.e. M/s GFFR Pvt. Ltd.. Therefore, order of the learned Assessing Officer may be reinstated. 5. At the outset, the learned A.R. for the assessee argued that the concerned land was purchased on 27/05/2008 at ₹ 1,26,23,758/- in the name of Director on behalf of ARG Developers Pvt. Ltd.. The second purchase was made on 28/06/2008 at ₹ 4,48,57,500/- in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the details of the land sale and schedule R of the accounts. The certificate of the company confirming the ownership of this land was also filed to the Assessing Officer. He also submitted that from these evidences it is evident that profit on sale of this transaction is duly recorded by GFFR in its books of accounts and offered for tax. Hence simply because both in the purchase deed and the sale deed of this land assessee has been reflected as the purchaser/seller of the land without reference to the name of the GFFR, it can't be presumed that it is the transaction of the assessee and not of the company more particularly when the department has assessed the profit on the sale of this land in the hands of the company. He further s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
