9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ght to have quashed the assessment. 2. Your Appellant submits that it is undisputed fact that the agreement of sale was entered on 31-3-2006 and possession of land was handed over on 1-4-2006, there is no wealth escaped assessment warranting issue of the notice under section 17 of W.T. Act, 1957, therefore the CWT(A) ought to have quashed the assessment. 3. The CWT(A) erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,36,00,000/ - being the value of land, ignoring the fact that the said asset has been sold and already received payment for the same. 4. The CWT(A) as well as Wealth Tax Officer has erred in law and facts of the case in ignoring the fact that for the same assessment year, the assessment under sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e still holds the ownership. It was the contention of assessee that the property was already sold and assessee has received the consideration and capital gains matter was also concluded for AY. 2007-08, so levying of Wealth Tax as on 31-03-2007 on the same property does not arise. This was negatived by the AO without any discussion in the order and value of the property was taken at Rs. 1.20 Crores as per the sale agreement. 3. Before the Ld.CIT(A), assessee reiterated the same facts but Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, stating as under: 5.3. Coming to the issue regarding whether the possession of the land was with the applicant during the F.Y. 2006-07. It is seen that the property was sold during the year and capital gains was offered fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r to the buyer and issue of capital gains arising on the agreement of sale was already concluded, even though the property was stated to have been registered on 01-04- 2008. If the property was still held to be assessee's possession, then, the department should not have assessed the capital gains for AY. 2007-08 on the reason that possession was handed over on 01-04-2006. He brought out the contradictory stand taken by the AO in Income Tax and Wealth Tax proceedings. 5. Ld.DR fairly admitted the facts of the case, but relied on the orders of the CIT(A). 6. After considering the rival contentions, we are of the opinion that the order of AO and CIT(A) cannot be sustained. It was the contention of the AO in Income Tax proceedings that assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
