2025 (6) TMI 1036 - AT - Income Tax

Legal Battle: Developer Wins Tax Dispute, Proves Long-Term Capital Gains Correctly Reported Under Section 271(1)(c)

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, rejecting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The case centered on the classification ... Levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(C) - as per revenue long term capital gain offered by the assessee should be taxed as short term capital gain HELD THAT:- Once assessee has furnished all the details and he has declared the income as long term capital gain which according to ld. AO should have been short term capital gain that does not tantamount to furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of income. Assessee has computed the long term capital gain on the premise that assessee has given all its right and possession in the property to developer in the assessment year when development agreement was signed, i.e., in the A.Y 2012-13, which even according to the AO should have been offered as Long term capital gain in that year. Thus, penalty cannot be levied by treating the LTCG and taxing as STCG in this year. Accordingly, the penalty levied by the ld. AO is deleted. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. Issues presented and considered:1. Whether the assessee was liable to pay penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by declaring long term capital gain (LTCG) in the assessment year (AY) 2015-16 instead of short term capital gain (STCG).2. Whether the capital gain arising from the sale of flats and shops constructed pursuant to a development agreement should be taxed as LTCG or STCG.3. Whether the assessee should have offered capital gain in AY 2012-13 when the development agreement was executed and possession was partly handed over.Issue-wise detailed analysis:Issue 1: Liability for penalty under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of incomeRelevant legal framework and precedents: Section 271(1)(c) imposes penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty is attracted if the assessee knowingly or willfully furnishes inaccurate particulars leading to concealment of income.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined whether the declaration of LTCG instead of STCG constitutes furnishing inaccurate particulars. The assessee had declared income as LTCG based on the premise that the assessee had parted with possession and rights in AY 2012-13 itself under the development agreement. The AO's contention was that the asset came into existence only in AY 2015-16 when the flats and shops were constructed and sold, thus the gain should be STCG.Key evidence and findings: The assessee had disclosed all relevant facts, including the development agreement, the percentage share in the project, and sale transactions. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not conceal any particulars but differed with the AO on the characterization of the gain as LTCG or STCG.Application of law to facts: Since the assessee had furnished all particulars and the dispute was on the taxability classification, the Tribunal held that this does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars attracting penalty.Treatment of competing arguments: The AO and CIT(A) upheld the penalty on the ground that the gain should have been treated as STCG, but the Tribunal distinguished this from furnishing inaccurate particulars, emphasizing that mere disagreement on tax treatment does not invoke penalty provisions.Conclusion: Penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied merely because the AO disagreed with the assessee's claim of LTCG instead of STCG.Issue 2: Classification of capital gain as LTCG or STCG arising from development agreement and subsequent saleRelevant legal framework and precedents: Capital gains are classified as long term or short term based on the period of holding of the asset. For immovable property, the threshold is 36 months. The question arises whether the period of holding starts from the date of the development agreement and part possession or from the date of completion of construction and sale.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The AO held that since the flats and shops were constructed and came into existence only in the current year (AY 2015-16), the holding period was less than 36 months, making the gain short term. However, the assessee contended that the development agreement and part possession in AY 2012-13 effectively transferred rights and possession, triggering capital gains in that year.Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal noted that the assessee and co-owners had entered into the development agreement in AY 2012-13 and had given possession in part performance of the contract. The Tribunal also noted that a similar matter involving a co-owner was remitted back to the AO for reassessment of capital gains in AY 2012-13, indicating recognition of the relevance of the earlier year for capital gains.Application of law to facts: The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that the capital gain should have been offered in AY 2012-13, as the rights and possession were transferred then. Therefore, the gain declared in AY 2015-16 as LTCG was consistent with the assessee's position that the gain arose earlier and was not short term.Treatment of competing arguments: The AO's argument that the asset came into existence only in AY 2015-16 was rejected on the basis that the development agreement and part possession created a right to receive constructed flats and shops, which is a capital asset for the purposes of capital gains.Conclusion: The gain should be regarded as LTCG arising from the earlier year when the development agreement was executed and possession partly given, not as STCG in AY 2015-16.Issue 3: Obligation to offer capital gain in AY 2012-13Relevant legal framework and precedents: Income is taxable in the year in which the capital asset is transferred. Transfer includes part performance of contract and handing over possession if rights in the property pass to the developer.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the assessee had accepted the assessment order for AY 2012-13 in a similar matter and that the matter was remitted back to the AO for reassessment of capital gains in that year. This indicated that the capital gain arose in AY 2012-13 and should have been offered then.Key evidence and findings: The development agreement dated 23/01/2012 and partial possession given to the developer were significant facts supporting this position.Application of law to facts: The Tribunal held that the assessee's approach of declaring LTCG in AY 2015-16 based on the transfer in AY 2012-13 was valid and did not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.Treatment of competing arguments: The AO's insistence on taxing the gain in AY 2015-16 was not accepted as it overlooked the effect of the earlier transfer under the development agreement.Conclusion: The capital gain should have been offered in AY 2012-13, and the assessee's declaration of LTCG in AY 2015-16 does not warrant penalty.Significant holdings:'Once assessee has furnished all the details and he has declared the income as long term capital gain which according to ld. AO should have been short term capital gain that does not tantamount to furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of income.'