Capital Gains Appeal: Tribunal Rules Gains to Be Assessed in AY 2009-10, Validating Revised Return Despite Delay.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, determining that the capital gains should be assessed in AY 2009-10, based on the unregistered collaboration agreement and the date of possession. This decision rendered other issues, such as the calculation of indexed cost and denial of deduction under Section 54, academic and not specifically adjudicated. The Tribunal condoned the 40-day delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's illness, and the revised return for AY 2009-10 was implicitly validated. The Tribunal's decision effectively resolved the contention regarding the evaluation of evidence and submissions by CIT (A). The order was pronounced on 28/12/2020.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Validity of the calculation of indexed cost by CIT (A).
3. Denial of deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act.
4. Determination of the correct assessment year for capital gains.
5. Ignoring revised return filed by the assessee.
6. Evaluation of evidence and submissions by CIT (A).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The assessee filed the appeal 40 days late due to illness (cancer). The Tribunal found the reason sufficient and condoned the delay, stating, "We do not find any reason to not to condone the delay for the reason shown by the assessee according to us they are sufficient and proper."

2. Validity of the Calculation of Indexed Cost by CIT (A):
The assessee contested the calculation of the indexed cost of acquisition by CIT (A), which was Rs. 610,879 compared to the claimed Rs. 5,682,912. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue separately as it became academic due to the decision on the assessment year for capital gains.

3. Denial of Deduction Under Section 54:
The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 54 amounting to Rs. 5,317,088, which was denied by CIT (A). This issue was also rendered academic and not specifically adjudicated due to the decision on the assessment year for capital gains.

4. Determination of the Correct Assessment Year for Capital Gains:
The primary dispute was whether the capital gains should be assessed in AY 2007-08 or AY 2009-10. The Tribunal noted that the collaboration agreement dated 1.06.2006 was not registered, and possession was handed over on 19.08.2008. Citing the Supreme Court decision in Balbir Singh Maini’s case, the Tribunal held, "Thus as the agreement in the present case is not registered one, it does not have any impact in the eye of law for the purpose of Section 53A of the transfer of property act and similarly for defining transfer Under the income tax act." Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the transfer took place in AY 2009-10, not AY 2007-08, and allowed the assessee's appeal on this ground.

5. Ignoring Revised Return Filed by the Assessee:
The assessee argued that the revised return for AY 2009-10, which included the correct computation of capital gains, was ignored. The Tribunal's decision to recognize AY 2009-10 as the correct assessment year implicitly addressed this issue, validating the revised return.

6. Evaluation of Evidence and Submissions by CIT (A):
The assessee claimed that CIT (A) failed to consider the evidence and submissions properly. The Tribunal's decision to shift the assessment year to 2009-10 effectively resolved this contention, as the evidence and submissions were aligned with this assessment year.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, determining that the capital gains should be assessed in AY 2009-10 based on the unregistered collaboration agreement and the date of possession. Consequently, other grounds became academic and were not adjudicated. The order was pronounced in the open court on 28/12/2020.

---