TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 768
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion to disallowance of claim u/s 54F. Since facts relating tothe aforesaid issue are common for both the appeals, and the substantive order passed by the ld CIT (A) is for A.Y 2007-08, for the sake of convenience, we will refer to the facts involved in A.Y 2007-08. 3. Briefly the facts relating to the issue in dispute are, the deceased assessee was an individual. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the I.T. Act was conducted in the business premises of Radha Realty group of cases. As a consequence of the search and seizure operations, a notice u/s 153C was issued to the assessee calling upon him to submit his return of income. In response to the said notice, assessee filed his return of income for the year under consideration declaring total income of Rs. 6,68,514. 4. During the assessment proceedings AO noticed that in the relevant previous year, assessee has received an amount of Rs. 20.00 lakhs on account of sale of land situated in Puppalaguda Village in survey Nos.262 to 264 from one Shri Ram Chandra Rao. Against the amount received for sale of the land, it was noticed by the AO, assessee has claimed deduction towards incidental expenses amounting to Rs. 12.00 lakhs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the light of the materials available on record found that the subject laid in survey Nos.262 to 264 of Puppalaguda Village, which was a litigated property was finally settled by the Loka Adalat vide order passed in OS No.481 of 2007 under which all the rights in the land were transferred to M/s. Demi Realtors. He also found that while passing the judgment the Loka Adalat has considered the compromise petition of the vendee and defendants and one amongst the defendant is also the present assessee. On going through the compromise petition, the ld CIT (A) found that the assessee along with another defendant Shri Syed Naseer has executed various sale deeds in favour of the defendant No.10 to 19. Such sale deeds were executed based on the power of attorney held by the assessee along with Shri Syed Naseer. 6. Further it was found by the ld CIT (A) that in the judgment delivered by the Loka Adalat it has been clearly mentioned that the payments are made for relinquishment of title rights claimed and interest over the scheduled property. The ld CIT (A) after considering all the facts and materials on record concluded that the amount received by the assessee was in connection with transac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tage of assessment or before him. For this purpose, he also relied upon an order passed by him in case of Mohd. Aleemunddin and others. However, Counsel for the assessee has asserted before us that not only the assessee had constructed a new house property by utilising the sale proceeds, but in fact assessee's family is also staying in that house only. On a perusal of the order passed in case of Mohd. Aleemunddin and others in ITA Nos.1264 to 1267/Hyd/2010 for A.Y 2008-09 dated 29.04.2014, it is noticed that the ITAT while deciding identical issue relating to the claim of deduction u/s 54F has restored the matter back to the file of the AO with the following observations: 6. Having heard both the parties and having considered the material on record, we find that group of cases pertaining to the assessees -qua the owners of the lands adjoining to the lands of the assessees, were disposed of by this Tribunal by holding as under- "5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. The provisions of section 54F are that if the assessee being a individual or HUF, the capital gain arises from transfer of any long term capital asset not being a residential house and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e rejecting assessee's claim of deduction u/s 54F has relied upon the order passed by him in case of Mohd. Aleemunddin and others, which in turn has been set aside by the Coordinate Bench in the order under reference, we consider it appropriate to remit the issue relating to the assessee's claim of deduction u/s 54F to the file of the AO with similar direction. Facts and issues being materially same in A.Y 2008-09, except for the amount of deduction of Rs. 51,00,000/-, following our decision for A.Y 2007-08, we also restore the issue relating to assessee's claim of deduction u/s 54F to the file of the AO for deciding afresh after due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 10. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 1396/Hyd/2010- Revenue's appeal 11. In this appeal, Department has raised four effective grounds. In Ground No.1, Department has challenged the decision of the ld CIT (A) in deleting the additions of Rs. 11.50 lakhs and Rs. 2,19,000 representing the advances received from Shri V. Ramachandra Rao and Shri Jagat Singh respectively. 12. Briefly the facts are, during the assessment proceedings, AO on the basis of inform....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsaction was also in different year. He noted that in the assessment order passed in the case of Shri V. Ramachandra Rao, AO also made a reference to the land transaction between the assessee with Shri V.Ramachandra Rao. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, ld CIT (A) finally concluded that as the assessee received the amount in question in financial year 1999-2000 that too for a different transaction, other than the transaction with DLF, the amount cannot be taxed as income during the year under consideration. Accordingly he deleted the addition. As far as the amount of Rs. 2,19,000 received from Shri Jagat Singh is concerned, the ld CIT (A) again observed that not only the amount was received in the financial year 1995-96 to 19997-98, but the transaction for which the amount was received is different from the transaction in relation to the land sold to the DLF. Accordingly he deleted the addition. 13. We heard both the parties. After perusal of the materials on record, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld CIT (A). The AO himself admits that the commission amount was received by the assessee in case of transaction with Shri V. Ramachandra Rao in the financial year ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the payment to the assessee and Shri Syed Naseer amounting to Rs. 5.00 lakhs was made through bearer cheques. The ld CIT (A) also observed that on examination of the sale deed No.8379/2007, it was found that the payment of Rs. 2,48,12,500 was in fact made to Demi Realtors and not to the assessee and Shri Syed Naseer as claimed by the said company. Thus on consideration of the aforesaid facts, the CIT (A) concluded that since the payment of Rs. 5.00 lakhs by Mali Florex to the assessee and Shri Syed Naseer was not conclusively proved and since the assessee had categorically denied of having received any such amount from Mali Florex, there is no justification to uphold the addition of Rs. 2.50 lakhs at the hands of the assessee on protective basis. Accordingly, he directed the AO to delete the addition. 16. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials on record. As could be seen, addition of Rs. 2.50 lakhs was made at the hands of the assessee relying upon the statement of Mali Florex that it has paid the amount of Rs. 5.00 lakhs to the assessee and Shri Syed Naseer as commission towards sale of land. Though, the AO had mentioned that the amounts were paid through chequ....