TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 647X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asoning adopted by the CIT(A). - Decided against revenue - I.T.A. No.914/Ahd/2016 - - - Dated:- 16-10-2017 - SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr.DR For The Respondentby : Shri S.N.Soparkar with Shri Parin Shah, ARs ORDER PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: The captioned appeal filed at the instance of the Revenue is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-XIV, [CIT(A) in short] dated 13/01/2014 arising in the assessment order passed by Assessing Officer (AO) under s.143(3) dated 08/12/2011 for Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue read as under:- i) The ld.CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roperty was in its possession since the year 2002 corroborated by allotment letter. The AO observed that as per the purchase agreement dated 04/01/2007 the possession was handed over to the assessee with effect from date of purchase agreement and not earlier as claimed. The AO further alleged that assessee did not produce any evidence towards payment for acquisition of asset in 2002 or prior thereto. In conclusion, the AO embarked upon addition of ₹ 64,89,000/- towards STCG accrued in the hands of the assessee and denied the benefit of LTCG claimed by the assessee. 4. In the first appeal preferred by the assessee, the CIT(A) reversed the action of the AO as per following operative paras. 5. I have perused the facts of the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant because in purchase deed the possession was mentioned to be given on 04.01.07. ( v) Appellant's claim u/s 54EC was simply denied without giving any detail and reasons. From the above observation of A.O., the only dispute is in reference to ownership of purported land, the transfer of which resulting into capital gain. The A.O. on the basis of purchase deed 04.01 .07 where at para 9 it is mentioned that in consideration of ₹ 1,11,000/- for which detail is mentioned at para 16, the possession of land is handed over. The detail at para 16 reflect that ₹ 11,000/- was paid by appellant in cash while ₹ 1,00,000/- was paid vide cheque no. 110302 dt. 14.10.96 of the Ahmedabad Mercantile Co. op. Bank. The appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l gain, at para 5, 6, 7 8 has details of various events of purchase of this property, payment of purchase consideration and other events of allotment and registration. These findings were not doubted by A.O. and therefore affirm the appellant's contention that though purchase consideration was paid in 1996 for which this plot of land was allotted by M/s N C corporation through Shri Narsingh Ganpatbhai Patel who thereafter issued power of attorney to his nephew Shri Varunbhai Naginbhai Patel who was confirming party in both purchase sale deed. It is therefore, merely by a draft language of the purchase deed at para 9, in my view all other facts cannot be brushed aside for ownership and holding of land for more than 36 months. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... become effective under 45 of the IT. Act from the date on which the document was executed, in case its registration was subsequently admitted before the Registrar. In the case of appellant sale consideration of ₹ 1,11,000/- paid in respect of plot of land allotted vide allotment letter dt. 14.09.2002 was accepted by the Registrar in purchase deed dt. 04.01.2007. It is therefore, A.O. is not justified in holding that appellant's holding period of impugned land is below 36 months. He is directed to treat the gain from transfer of the impugned land as long term capital gain as reflected by appellant in the return of income. In reference to claim of appellant of ₹ 50,00,000/- u/s 54EC, since A.O. has simply denied t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the hand, relied upon the order of the CIT(A) and submitted that payment for the purchase of land was made way back in 1996 details of which form part of the purchase agreement. On the basis of such payment, the possession was obtained and a formal purchase deed was finally executed in 2007 to give a legal effect to the aforesaid transaction. The ld.Counsel thus submitted that for all intent and purposes, the asset was held for more than 36 months. He also referred to the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Anita D.Kanjani vs. ACIT in ITA No.2291/Mum/2015 dated 13/02/2007 to attend that holding period should be computed from the date of allotment letter notwithstanding the fact that formal purchase-deed was executed at a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
