TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 182
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ven though issues are different. The Learned Departmental Representative sought adjournment earlier for revising the grounds in assessment year 2004-05, when the case was posted on 25th April, 2013. On 13.5.2013 also, the learned CIT-DR sought adjournment and to enable him to file revised grounds, the case was adjourned to 16.5.2013 and subsequently to 22.5.2013. The learned CIT-DR fairly submitted that Assessing Officer has not revised the grounds and he would, therefore, argue on merits in both the cases, for which the learned counsel expressed no objection. ITA No.1125/Hyd/2012 : Assessment year 2007-08 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee is a partnership concern. It possessed 19,239 sq. yards of land situated at Survey Nos.129....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6,322 offered by the assessee. Thereupon, the Assessing Officer re-opened the assessment and ultimately made an addition of Rs. Rs.42,10,872 to the long term capital gains disclosed by the assessee of Rs.6,17,42,895, and accordingly completed the assessment on a total income of Rs.7,10,34,043, vide order of assessment dated 26.12.2011 passed under S.143(3) read with S.147 of the Act. 6. On appeal, the assessee questioned the reopening of the assessment completed under S.143(3) read with S.147 and also the merits of the addition made based on the report of the DVO. 7. The learned CIT(A) dealt with the addition per se to hold that the addition cannot survive as the Valuation Officer has allowed 7.5% on account of self-supervision, where....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this addition on account of an immaterial difference in valuation and that to by artificially giving a lower amount of benefit for self-supervision. The addition accordingly is ordered to be deleted. Once the addition is not tenable, the other grounds of appeal are not being adjudicated upon." 8. The Revenue is contesting the issue of deduction on account of self-supervision allowed in the hands of the assessee, when the assessee has not supervised the construction and hence is not eligible for the same. 9. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the revenue's appeal. First of all, the building is constructed by a builder and the assessee obtained 60% share in the said building construc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....yd/2012, is dismissed. ITA No.1124/Hyd/2012 : Assessment year 2004-05 11. The issue in this appeal arises in a peculiar manner. While completing the assessment originally for assessment year 2007-08, the Assessing Officer was of the view that capital gains arise in the year in which the assessee entered into agreement, rather than in the year in which the assessee took possession of the developed property. Therefore, he left a note in that assessment year that the amount substantially has to be assessed in assessment year 2004-05, rather than in assessment year 2007-08. The assessment for assessment year 2004-05 was accordingly reopened. 12. The assessee contested the observations of the Assessing Officer in assessment year 2007-08....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ver possession of constructed area and (3) at the time of sale of constructed area. The specific portion of the assessment order is as below- .................. 5.2 I find that the Assessing Officer has made a factual error. Firstly, by holding that the 40% of land was transferred in the previous year relevant to AY 2004-05. This is incorrect because not transfer took place during that period and the builder never obtained any rights to enjoy 40% of the land. He was only allowed to construct on the 60% of the land, as a contractor. This is not a transaction of "transfer". However, if the version of the Assessing Officer is believed, then there was not taxable transaction pertaining to AY 2007-08. Payment towards construction does not ....