TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3-14 is not correct and upholding the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of capital gains in the hands of the assessee, we dismiss the grounds raised by the revenue on this issue. JDA executed on 29th April, 2017 which was materialized and as we have decided the issue against the revenue cited supra , therefore, in the interest of justice give direction that AO is directed to take necessary action for determining the capital gains on impugned property in the respective year/years. - ITA No. 848/H/2019, ITA No. 849/H/2019 - - - Dated:- 24-8-2021 - Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member And Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member For the Revenue : Shri D. Srinivas For the Assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al evidence are not existing in the instant case. 5. Any other ground(s) that may be urged at the time of hearing . 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income on 26/07/2013 declaring income at ₹ 1,52,500/-. A search and seizure action was carried out on 26/02/2014 in the case of Sri Samuel Rajkumar Patta, International Outreach group of cases, in which, certain documents were found specifically documents related to joint development agreement in respect of the land at Gachibowli wherein the assessee also has a share and as such it was found to have bearing on the determination of the total income of the assessee. 2.1 Accordingly, the AO initiated the proceedings u/s 153C of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the submissions of the assessee, the AO computed the long term capital gains in the hands of the assessee at ₹ 17,13,60,000/- for the impugned AY 2013-14. 3. When the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) against the order of AO, the CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee deleted the addition made by the AO on account of capital gains in the hands of the assessee by observing as under: 8. I have considered the assessment order, documents placed on record by the assessee, the remand report and the submissions of the assessee thereon. It is seen that originally JDA was entered into in June, 2008. The above JDA was cancelled and fresh JDA was signed on 12.07.2012. This agreement dt.12.07.2012 is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that no capital gains is taxable for the assessment year under consideration. In view of the above, the addition made is liable to be deleted and the same is deleted. 4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before the ITAT. 5. Before us, the ld. DR submitted that the agreement made by the assessee on 12/07/2012 was a registered JDA and, therefore, section 2(47) will apply and the AO has computed the capital gains accordingly in the hands of the assessee. He further submitted that before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that later on cancelled the JDA entered on 12/07/2012, which was not submitted before the AO. He, therefore, contended that the assessee s intention to avoid tax on the capital gains rece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment on 21/03/2016. The assessee submitted further agreement entered on 29th April, 2017. During the course of proceedings, the ld. AR of the assessee filed an additional evidence under Rule 29, Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. On perusal of this documents along with photographs, we find that construction activity is undergoing, but, it is not clear when the photographs were taken, which are placed on record. We find that the fresh JDA executed on 29/04/2017 was registered and paid registration charges of ₹ 1,02,20,600/-. It clearly shows that earlier JDAs were not materialized, on the basis of which assessments were completed by the AO. Therefore, capital gains in AY 2013-14 in the hands of the assessee do not arise, Considering t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
