Capital gains timing dispute sent back for factual verification; linked exemption and cost claims also remanded.

Capital gains on the land sale were not finally upheld in the impugned year because the core question was whether transfer occurred on execution and registration of the sale deed or only on receipt of the balance consideration. As factual parity with earlier Tribunal decisions required verification, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination and adjudication in accordance with law. The related claims for exemption under sections 54B and 54F, along with indexed cost and cost of improvement, were consequential and were also restored without merits determination.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the addition of the entire sale consideration as long-term capital gains in the impugned year should be sustained or the matter should be restored for verification of the assessee's factual claim based on parity with earlier Tribunal decisions. (ii) Whether the related claims for exemption under sections 54B and 54F, and the claims concerning indexed cost and cost of improvement, could be adjudicated at this stage.

Issue (i): Whether the addition of the entire sale consideration as long-term capital gains in the impugned year should be sustained or the matter should be restored for verification of the assessee's factual claim based on parity with earlier Tribunal decisions.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether transfer of the land, for capital gains purposes, took place in the year of execution and registration of the sale deed or only on receipt of the balance consideration. The assessee relied on earlier Tribunal orders in similar land-sale disputes, while the Revenue pointed out distinguishing facts, including the absence of supporting material showing that the assessee's land was covered by the earlier dispute and the absence of comparable evidence regarding postponed delivery of possession. As the assessee accepted that the factual identity with the earlier cases required verification, and the Department did not object to a limited restoration, the matter was found fit for remand to the Assessing Officer for factual verification and fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The addition was not finally sustained on merits and the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification in the assessee's favour.

Issue (ii): Whether the related claims for exemption under sections 54B and 54F, and the claims concerning indexed cost and cost of improvement, could be adjudicated at this stage.

Analysis: These grounds were consequential to the main dispute on the year of taxation of capital gains. Since the principal issue was remanded for fresh examination, the connected claims depended on the outcome of that verification and were not examined on merits at that stage.

Conclusion: These grounds were also restored to the Assessing Officer and were not finally decided on merits.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was disposed of by restoring the substantive tax issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification, resulting in a partial relief to the assessee and no final merits determination on the connected exemption and cost-related grounds.

---