Tribunal partially allows appeals for multiple assessment years, upholds reassessment validity & disallows claimed expenditure.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals for A.Ys 2006-07 and 2011-12, with the appeal for A.Y 2007-08 partly allowed for statistical purposes. The appeal against the penalty for A.Y 2006-07 was allowed. The Tribunal found the delay in filing appeals was condoned, upheld the validity of re-assessment proceedings, determined the year of taxability of capital gains, and disallowed the claimed expenditure. The computation of capital gains was based on the SRO value, and the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was deemed unwarranted.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.
2. Validity of re-assessment proceedings under Section 147.
3. Year of taxability of capital gains.
4. Computation of capital gains.
5. Disallowance of expenditure claimed.
6. Applicability of Section 45(5A) retrospectively.
7. Levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals:
The assessee filed an application for condonation of a 38-day delay in filing the appeal for A.Y 2006-07, attributing the delay to a misunderstanding and subsequent travel by her son. The Tribunal found the delay neither wilful nor wanton and condoned it.

2. Validity of Re-assessment Proceedings under Section 147:
The assessee challenged the validity of the re-assessment proceedings, arguing no escapement of income. The Tribunal upheld the validity, noting that the assessee did not offer capital gains from a development agreement in her return, giving the AO reasonable cause to believe income had escaped assessment.

3. Year of Taxability of Capital Gains:
The assessee contended that capital gains should be taxed in the year of receipt of possession of the constructed area (A.Y 2011-12). The AO and CIT (A) held that the year of taxability was the year of execution of the development agreement (A.Y 2006-07), supported by the decision in Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia vs. CIT. The Tribunal upheld this view, referencing the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Shri Potla Nageswara Rao vs. DCIT.

4. Computation of Capital Gains:
The AO computed the capital gains using the SRO value of the land, while the CIT (A) enhanced the income based on the development agreement's estimated property value. The Tribunal found the CIT (A)'s approach erroneous, as the estimated value included future superstructure value. The Tribunal upheld the AO's use of the SRO value for computation.

5. Disallowance of Expenditure Claimed:
The assessee claimed an expenditure of Rs. 80 lakhs paid for arranging the development agreement, which was disallowed by the CIT (A) due to lack of evidence. The Tribunal upheld this disallowance, noting the assessee failed to provide evidence even before the Tribunal.

6. Applicability of Section 45(5A) Retrospectively:
The assessee raised an additional ground, arguing that the insertion of Section 45(5A) by the Finance Act, 2017, should apply retrospectively. The Tribunal rejected this ground, determining that the provision was intended to minimize future hardship and was not clarificatory or retrospective.

7. Levy of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c):
The AO levied a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for not offering capital gains to tax in A.Y 2006-07. The Tribunal found the issue of the year of taxability to be debatable at the relevant time, with the assessee having offered the gains in A.Y 2011-12. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the penalty was not warranted and allowed the appeal against the penalty.

Summary of Judgments:
- Appeals for A.Ys 2006-07 and 2011-12: Partly allowed.
- Appeal for A.Y 2007-08: Partly allowed for statistical purposes.
- Appeal against penalty for A.Y 2006-07: Allowed.

Order Pronounced:
The Tribunal pronounced the order in the Open Court on 30th November 2017.

---