TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 631
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t years. The assessee is also in appeals before us, in ITA Nos.1785 to 1788/Mds/2013 for restricting the levy of penalty to 100% from 300% levied by the Assessing Officer u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act consequent to assessment of capital gains in the assessment years 2006-07, 2009-10 to 2011-12. 3. The Revenue is in appeals before us in ITA Nos.1945 & 1946/Mds/13 for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 for cancellation of protective assessment for these assessment years. The Revenue is also in appeals before us in ITA No.1944, 1947, 1948 and 1949/Mds/2013 for the asst. years 2006-07, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 with regard to reduction of penalty from 300% to 100% levied by the Assessing Officer u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of these assessment years. 4. First, we take up the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos.1779 to 1784/Mds/2013. 4.1 The facts of the case as narrated for the assessment year 2006-07 are that M/s. Coromandel Cables Pvt. Ltd. (for short CCPL) is incorporated in 1976 to carry on the business of manufacture of cables. However, on account of operational losses and due to labour unrest, the factory at Perungudi, Chennai, was shut down in late 1990. Subse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee's counsel that there was retraction of statement given by Smt. Rani Gopinath, which was filed before the ACIT, Com. Cir.I(3) on 22.2.2012. Against this, the CIT(Appeals) observed that the assessment was reopened after duly recording the reasons and according to him, reopening of assessment is valid. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The first common issue with regard to reopening of assessment is in ITA Nos. 1779, 1780, 1781 and 1782/Mds/2013 (A.Ys. 2006-07 to 2009-10). We consider the facts narrated for the asst. year 2006-07, since the facts are similar in all these asst. years. 6. Before us, the ld. AR reiterated the submissions, which was advanced before the CIT(Appeals). The ld. DR relied on the order of the CIT(Appeals). 7. We have gone through the reasons recorded for reopening of the reasons recorded for the reopening. In this case, the assessment was reopened to consider the tax incidence on entering into JDA dated 23.11.2005 with Doshi Housing. After duly recording the reasons for reopening, notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 30.1.2012. 7.1 In our opinion, section 147 authorises and permits the Assessing Officer to a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 148 read with section 147(a). But under the substituted section 147 existence of only the first condition suffices. In other words if the Assessing Officer for whatever reason has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment it confers jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. It is, however, to be noted that both the conditions must be fulfilled if the case falls within the ambit of the proviso to section 147. The case at hand is covered by the main provision and not the proviso. Being so, as long as the ingredients of sec.147 are fulfilled, the Assessing Officer is free to initiate the proceedings u/s.147 of the Act. We have no hesitation in confirming the action of the AO in reopening of assessment in all these appeals and reject this ground of appeal of the assessee. 8. The next common ground in all the above appeals is with regard to invoking the provisions of sec.2(47)(v) of the Act based on the JDA entered into by the assessee with Doshi Housing on 23.11.2005, which was found during the course of survey u/s.133A of the Act on 24.1.2012. 9. The facts of the issue are that during the course of survey u/s.133A, JDA dated 23.11.2005 was found. On the same day, a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of entire project of Doshi Housing (para 8.3 of Assessment Order) for the financial years 2006-07 to 2009-10 relevant to the Assessment years 2007-08 to 2010-11 Rs. 32,52,42,147 Sale consideration 37.54% share of Appellant Company Rs. 12,20,95,902 Less: Indexed cost as worked out at para 11 of the Assessment Order which works out to(0.1% of sale price) Rs. 1,24,146 Long Term Capital Gains Rs. 12,20,07,920 Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. 10. The ld. AR submitted that the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2006-07 was reopened consequent to the survey under section 133A of the Act on 24-1-2012 and in completing the said re-assessment the A.O. had shifted the incidence of the capital gain tax from the land transaction hereinbefore referred to based on the deemed transfer theory as per section 2(47)( v) of the Act to the first assessment year viz., 2006-07 as well as based on the impounded JDA, which was also entered into with the same purchaser on the same date as well as not registered. 10.1 The ld. AR further submitted that the Assessing Officer had computed the long term capital gain on the presumption of the po....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eld by the Court in the case that the deemed transfer theory could not be pressed into service for various reasons more fully set out therein. The assessee company strongly relies upon the said decision for rejecting the shifting of the incidence of capital gains for taxation to the first assessment year, viz., 2006-07. 10.8 According to the ld. AR, the tax evasion consequent to the impounding of the JDA as well as questioning the constitution of the partnership firm by purchaser are not relevant to the issue under consideration and the assessee company submits that the JDA was not pressed into service by them for computing the capital gain tax while circumventing the deemed transfer theory. 10.9 He submitted that first of all, in the implementation of the JDA, the deemed transfer theory cannot be roped in and further it is to be noted that if the survey results including the documents impounded as well as the sworn statements are taken into consideration, it is fatal for the revenue's case. If the assessee company is considered as a joint developer as understood by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order passed for the reassessment year 2006-07, the provisions of s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pport the plea before the Bench for interfering in the matter in quashing the re-assessment framed for the assessment year 2006-07. 10.15 The ld. AR submitted that the treatment in the hands of the other developer, M/s. Doshi Housing is also very critical to render decision in the present appeals and without cross verifying the financials of the said partnership firm the A.O. rejected the reporting of long term capital gains by the assessee company in the subsequent four assessment years, viz., 2008- 09 to 2011-12. If the purchaser/the other developer booked the cost of purchase of land in those assessment years, shifting of the incidence of capital gains to the first assessment year, viz., 2006-07, in such circumstances is wholly unjustified. 10.16 The ld. AR submitted that the sworn statement of the partner of the purchaser was also referred to by the Assessing Officer in the reassessment order for the assessment year 2006- 07 and apparently in the said statement marked as "Annexure G" to the said reassessment order for the assessment year 2006-07, it was stated in answer to question No.8 that the impounded JDA was not enforced and implemented. The said crucial aspect was not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns authenticity only when proper evidences contrary to the position appraised and accepted in the survey is brought on record. The decisions of various courts in this regard is captured and made available for reference as follows : 1) Surjeet Singh Chhabra v. Union of India (1 SCC 508) 2) Dr. S.C. Gupta v. CIT 248 ITR 782 (All) 3) Narayan Bhagawantharao Gosavi Batajiwale vs. Gopal AIR 1960 SC 100 4) V. Kunhanbu v. CIT (219 ITR 325) (Kerala) 11.2 Further, the ld. DR submitted that Smt. Rani Gopinath is well educated and is conscious of what she was telling and she was assisted and advised by her C.A., Sri Ramasubramaniam, her son Sri Surendranath, her business partners Shri Mehul Doshi and Harshad Doshi, during the course of survey. She was not alone, her own son also agreed for the facts disclosed by Smt. Rani Gopinath in a letter form independently on the day of survey itself and the same facts put to Sri Mehil Doshi, partner of Doshi Housing, who has also confirmed in his statements given on the same day of survey. 11.3 The ld. DR further submitted that it is evident that the statement given by Smt. Rani Gopinath is on the factual informa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the assessee to give basis for retraction vide notices u/s.142(1) dated 21.3.2012 and 4.4.2012. The AR has appeared on 28.3.2012 and 17.4.2012, but no contemporaneous evidence subsequent to survey to the effect that JDA was not acted upon was filed. Therefore, retraction is invalid. 11.5 The argument of the ld. AR that CIT has no role to play in giving advise to the AO on the retraction statement filed before him by Smt. Rani Gopinath is also not correct. The retraction letter was addressed to the Commissioner and filed originally in his office. Only a copy was filed before the AO on 22.2.2012. In the hierarchy a report was called for by the Commissioner to dispose off the petition before him. In the scheme of things, the AO has submitted his report and the opinion of the Commissioner was communicated officially by the Income-tax Officer (HQs), attached to the O/o Commissioner of Income-tax- I, Chennai. 11.6 Regarding taxing of profits in the hands of the developer which were attributed to the assessee holding that Rs. 25 crores paid to one of the partners were taken as part of sale proceeds of land held by the assessee, the ld. DR submitted that the assessee holds that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cres and 34.5 cents of land which is incredible and intriguing. An independent agreement of sale would certainly propose the sale consideration to be received and receivable particularly for the purpose of surety and harmony between the contracting parties. But, there is an enforceable JDA at the back-drop, to support the actual transactions. Hence, the parties had not taken care to mention the sale value in it. It only mentions that the actual sale consideration to be received from buyers as per guideline value would be sale consideration. The document also mentions a receipt of advance of Rs. 10 lakhs only vide Cheque No.088218 dated 24.11.2005 drawn on Central Bank of India, Chennai 600 008. The characteristics of a true and independently existing sale agreement are not exhibited in this sale agreement. It clearly implies that there is a certain other document which ensures the vendor of the land, is not in any way, deprived of the actual value, the land transfer ought to generate. This document is exactly hidden from view of the Department. The apparent deficiency in the documentation which would stand the test before the courts, in case of dishonor of the terms and conditions,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...........These flats are towards the area receivable by me as per Joint Development Agreement dated 23.11.2005 and are received in partial discharge of the Joint Development Agreement." Thus the statements given by Smt. Rani Gopinath and others along with this evidence is sufficient to prove that the JDA is in operation with effect from 23.11.2005 and the sharing ratio as per JDA is in implementation. 11.12 He drew our attention to the relevant part of the transfer as per the JDA is reproduced: "And WHEREAS THE OWNER have requested the DEVELOPER to develop the entire SAID property of 3 acres and 34.5 cents more fully described in Schedule - A hereunder. And WHEREAS OWNER have agreed to sell to the DEVELOPER or its nominee 2 acres and 8.68 cents of land more fully described in Schedule-B hereunder out of the Schedule - A detailed property, and accept as total sales consideration 37.54% of the area sanctionable on the entire land of 3 acres and 34.5 cents described in Schedule-A hereunder, such area allotable to the OWNER more fully described in Schedule-C hereunder". According to the ld. DR, it is clear from the above para that 62.45% of land or 2.68 acres of land, h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'. Elaborating upon the scope of Section 2(47)(v), their Lordships observed as follows: "Under section 2(47)(v), any transaction involving allowing of possession to be taken or retained in part performance of the contract of the nature referred to in Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act would come within the ambit of Section 2(47)(v). That, in order to attract Section 53A, the following conditions need to be fulfilled. There should be contract for consideration; it should be in writing; it should be signed by the transferor; it should pertain to the transfer of immovable property; the transferee should have taken possession of property; lastly, transferee should be ready and willing to perform the contract. That even arrangements confirming privileges of ownership, without transfer of title, could fall under Section 2(47)(v)". 12.1 Their Lordships, having made the above observations, took note of the fact that Section 2(47)(v) was introduced in the Act w.e.f. asst. year 1988-89 because prior thereto, in most cases, it was argued on behalf of the assessee that no transfer took place till execution of conveyance. It was also noted by their Lordships that, in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y by writing signed by him or on his behalf from which the terms necessary to constitute transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty, and the transferee has, in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the property or any part thereof, or the transferee, being already in possession, continues in possession in part performance of the contract and has done some act in furtherance of the contract, and the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract, then, notwithstanding that the contract, though required to be registered, has not been registered, or, where there is an instrument of transfer, that the transfer has not been completed in the manner prescribed thereof by the law for the time being in force, the transferor or any person claiming under him shall be debarred from enforcing against the, transferee and persons claiming under him any right in respect of the property of which the transferee has taken or continued in possession, other than the right specifically provided by the terms of the contract; Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the rights of a transferee for consideration who has no notice of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his commentary on the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. It is thus clear that 'willingness to perform' for the purposes of Section 53A is something more than a statement of intent; it is the unqualified and unconditional willingness on the part of the vendee to perform its obligations. Unless the party has performed or is willing to perform its obligations under the contract, and in the same sequence in which these are to be performed, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act will come into play on the facts of that case. It is only elementary that, unless provisions of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act are satisfied on the facts of a case, the transaction in question cannot fall within the scope of deemed transfer under Section 2(47)(v) of the IT Act. Let us therefore consider whether the transferee, on the facts of the present case, can be said to have 'performed or is willing to perform' its obligations under the agreement. 13. In the present case, there is a JDA dated 23.11.2005 between the assessee and Doshi Housing and on the same day, there is also a sale agreement between the same parties. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nnai - 600 008, the receipt of which sum owner doth hereby acknowledge. This advance shall be refunded without interest in the Developer at the time of handing over the built up areas of the OWNER share as per the joint development agreement." 13.4 However, clause (2) of the agreement dated 23.11.2005 at page 9 of the paper book reads as follows: "2. From now onwards the Developers shall step into the shoes of the Owners and shall perform all the duties, rights and obligations as envisaged in the Sale Agreement dated 23.11.2005. The Developers have taken possession of the property and they are entitled to construct and develop the schedule mentioned property as per the sanctioned plan." 13.5 Thus, as seen from the JDA, the possession has not been given and also sale consideration is quantified at 37.54% of sanctionable construction area. The assessee only received refundable deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs. As such, the assessee has received a meagre amount as refundable deposit, which cannot be construed as receipt of part of sale consideration. There is no evidence to show that the developer got approval of the building plan from the Municipality for construction of the bu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e possession of the allocated area- developed property to the assessee. 13.7 But the fact remains that the developer had failed to get the approval of the plan or perform its obligations under the JDA. Even otherwise, the assessing authorities has not brought on record the actual position of the project even as on the date of assessment and he has not recorded the findings whether the developer started the construction work at any time during the assessment year 2006-07. He went on to proceed on the sole issue with regard to entering into JDA and the statement given by Smt. Rani Gopinath during the survey conducted u/s.133A of the Act. Further, handing over the possession of the property is only one of the conditions u/s 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, but it is not the sole and isolated condition because of the supplementary agreement dated 23.11.2005. It was stated by the ld. DR that the developer has taken the possession of the property and the developer was entered into JDA to develop the property as per sanctioned plan. It cannot be presumed that all the conditions required u/s.2(47)(v) of the Act are fulfilled. On these facts, it is not possible to hold that the trans....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the financial year 2006-07 relevant to the asst. year 2007-08. Without accrual of the consideration to the assessee, the assessee is not expected to pay capital gains on the entire agreed sales consideration. When time is essence of the contract, and the time schedule is not adhered to, it cannot be said that such a contract confers any rights on the vendor/landlord to seek redressal under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. This agreement of JDA cannot, therefore, be said to be in the nature of a contract referred to in Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that the provisions of Section 2(47)(v) will apply in the situation before us. 15.1 Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case as discussed above, we are of the considered view that the assessee deserves to succeed on reason that the capital gains could not have been taxed in this assessment year in appeal before us. 15.2 Further, the ld. DR relied on the sworn statement recorded from Smt. Rani Gopinath. As discussed earlier, in the sworn statement dated 24.1.2012, she has offered capital gains. It was stated that the company had intentionally and deliberat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Rs. 25 crores which is nothing but amount receivable by the assessee towards the sale consideration said to be received from Doshi Housing and it is a collusive transaction and the Tribunal must take note of all the facts which form part of the same transaction and the authorities are not debarred from going into the facts brought before them and it will not be proper to overlook the facts which are clear from the records. According to the DR, the sum and substance of this case is that the assessee sold the impugned property to M/s. Doshi Housing and the sale consideration was routed through Shri M.G.Surendranath, who is son of Smt. Rani Gopinath, Managing Director of the assessee company. According to the DR, the entire issue is required to be considered in its proper perspective and has to be treated as one common transaction entered through three separate agreements but in common principle underlying is that it is a transfer u/s.2(47(v) of the Act. 15.5 Admittedly, in this case, Shri MG Surendranath was inducted into the partnership of M/s. Doshi Housing. Accordingly, he received a sum of Rs. 25,64,59,023/- during the period from 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010, which is mentioned in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sworn statement during the course of survey u/s.133A of the Act and also circumstances under which Shri MG Surendranath made a statement before the authorities. We have already given the reasons as to why these statements cannot be relied upon. There was no evidence collected during the course of survey to show that the assessee has already given the possession of the property to the developer and the developer carried out the development activity in the asst. year 2006-07. Further, even if, we consider the sale agreement dated 23.11.2005 as validly executed sale agreement, there is no mention of the sale consideration in that sale agreement. It was mentioned in clause 2 of the sale agreement that consideration payable and date of payment of the consideration cannot be fixed at the time of signing of said sale agreement and the same shall be actual sale consideration realised from the prospective purchasers of undivided shares in the said property at the guideline value fixed by the Registration Department of Govt. of Tamilnadu prevailing at the time of each sale. The vendor, the present assessee authorised the purchaser i.e. Doshi Housing to collect the sale consideration from th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the cases of McDowell and Co. Ltd. v. CTO [154 ITR 148] cannot be applied in view of the decision in the case of Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [263 ITR 706] & Vodafone International Holdings B.V. vs. Union of India & another, 341 ITR 1 (SC). 16.2 In the present case, JDA was executed envisaging consideration mainly in terms of a portion of built-up area. The handing over of possession of the property by the land owner to the developer is not mentioned in the JDA and it is to be construed as deferred till the handing over of the stipulated portion of the marked built up area by the developer to the land owner. Upto that point of time, the developer was only licensed to enter the property for the limited purpose of development and construction as discussed earlier. The transfer does not take place immediately and the liability to capital gains does not arise until the built up area earmarked for the land owner as constructed and handed over. However, when the registration of document transferring undivided interest in land is done in favour of flat owner, then to that extent liability to capital gains tax to be paid by the assessee as held in the case of Chaturbhuj Dw....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ovable property. - Further held that such transactions cannot be recognized as a valid mode of transfer - the validity of genuine agreement of sale and power of attorney would not be affected on the basis of above observation. -Transactions effected through an unregistered agreement of sale, GPA and would not get affected if these were executed before the date of amendment made in the Registration Act which makes it clear that compulsory registration of all documents is necessary w.e.f. 24th Sept, 2001. -Also observed that the unregistered sale agreement, GPA and will transfers could also be used to obtain specific performance or to defend possession under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. -It was also finally clarified that any genuine or good faith transactions would not be invalidated by this decision. Since the Supreme Court has protected the genuine transactions, those were executed previously (before the date of making compulsory registration of all transfer documents under the registration Act, 1908) and supported by unregistered documents, by providing an option to get it registered and claim better title on the proper....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ck-in-trade and they transferred the land pieces to the buyers and received the consideration. The buyers also constructed the property thereon. The documents, however, could not be registered in favour of the buyers because of restriction under Urban Land Ceiling Act. The Court held that the amounts received from the buyers were in the nature of business receipts and notwithstanding that documents were not registered, the land plots under reference could not be treated as stock-in-trade of the assessee. Thus it was held that the mere fact that sale deed had not been executed was not conclusive for holding that the amount received was only earnest money and not trading receipt. 16.7 Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sardar Govindrao Mahadik and Anr. v. Devi Sahai and Ors. AIR 1982 SC 989, 1982(1) SCALE 191, (1982) 1 SCC 237, [1982] 2 SCR 186 has analysed the concept of part performance under section 53A of Transfer of Property Act and after analysing and referring to various case laws observed as under: "To qualify for the protection of the doctrine of part performance it must be shown that there is a contract to transfer for consideration immovable propert....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cide the year of the chargeability. In the facts of above case the assessee had entered into an agreement with the developer on 18-8-1994 to sell his share of immovable property for a consideration with a right to the developer to develop the property in accordance with the rules and regulations framed by the Government. For the purpose of obtaining necessary permission and approval a power of attorney was executed giving limited powers with the developers. The developer obtained permissions till the financial year ending 31-3-1996 and had also paid almost sale price except for the small amount. Bombay Municipal Corporation, however, issued a commencement certificate permitting construction only on 15-11-1996. Ultimately the power of attorney was executed on 12-3-1999. The assessee paid the tax on capital gain in A.Y. 1999-2000. The department contended that transfer had taken place during year ended 31-3-1996 relevant to A.Y. 1996-97 and accordingly, taxed the assessee in A.Y. 1996-97. The Hon'ble High Court after fully discussing the scope of clause (v) of section 2(47) of the Act and also laying down guidelines for applying the clause held on the facts that the transfer had not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e owner to the developer. 17.3 In the case of Smt. Prameela Krishna v. ITO, (2014) 111 DTR (Kar.) 364/(2014) 221 Taxman 485 (Kar.) considered by High Court of Karnataka the facts were that an agreement was entered into by the land owner with a development company on 30-6-1994. As per the agreement 92% of undivided share in the land was to be transferred to the developer and 8% was to be retained by the land owner. The developer has to handover 8% of built-up-area to the land owner along with consideration of Rs. 30 lakhs. Rs. 10 lakhs have been paid during the year. Subsequently the agreement was modified on 27-2-1996 and consideration was increased to Rs. 40 lakhs in cash and 8.5% of built-up-area. The developer had further made payment of Rs. 25 lakhs, aggregating to Rs. 35 lakhs out of Rs. 40 lakhs payable. The developer had to construct seven blocks of the property. He had put up foundation for all seven blocks. He has also constructed super structure of four blocks. At this juncture the said agreement was cancelled. Another builder was brought in to complete the construction. An agreement dated 8-1-2003 was executed along with earlier builder being a confirming party. The s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsfer with the meaning of sec.2(47) of the Act in the asst. year 2006-07. The aforesaid Third Member decision of the Chennai Bench is akin to a special Bench decision as held by the Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in Dy.CIT vs. Oman International Bank reported in 100 ITD 285(SB) and by the Delhi High Court in P.C.Puri v. CIT reported in 151 ITR 584 at page 604. Thus, the decision of the Chennai Bench is binding. Accordingly, ITA No.1779/Mds/2013 for the asst. year 2006-07 is partly allowed. 20. ITANo.1780/Mds/2013 : For the asst. year 2007-08, the assessee did not file any return of income. Therefore, an action u/s.133A was conducted in the case of the assessee and consequent to the survey operations, the assessee filed a return of income on 10.4.2012 admitting a gain of Rs. 55,84,094/-. However, the said return of income was lodged by the AO that the same was filed much after the due date envisaged u/s.139(4) of the Act. The AO, thereafter came to the conclusion that the income of the assessee as declared in the return of income had escaped assessment and therefore, reopened the assessee by issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act. The assessee requested that the return already file....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce, we have vacated the finding of the CIT(Appeals), for the asst. year 2006-07 by observing that there is no transfer u/s.2(47)(v) of the Act, the assessment for the asst. year 2008- 09 is to be treated as substantive as discussed in earlier paragraph for the asst. year 2007-08 and the income has to be computed on long term capital gains and short term capital gains after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and the AO shall work out the capital gains afresh. Accordingly, the levy of interest u/s.234A for the asst. year 2008-09 is to be computed, which is mandatory in nature. 24. Regarding the denial of cost of improvement, if the assessee places necessary evidence, the same to be considered. The assessee has produced a copy of agreement between the assessee and contractor alleged to have been entered on 11.5.2005. The AO found that the agreement lacks credence mainly because the impoverishment of the appropriate contents which a true agreement ought to incorporate in it. The AO did not believe that the amounts were left unpaid for a period of 6 years and no proof of payment was also submitted. The AO was of the opinion that the bills provided by Takshil Trading P. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 28. ITA No.1783 & 1784/Mds/2013 (A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011- 12): The appeals for the asst. years 2010-11 and 2011-12 are disposed of as discussed in the asst. year 2009-10. Accordingly, the assessee's appeals in ITA Nos. 1783 & 1784/Mds/2013 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. 29. Now, we take up the Revenue's appeal in ITA Nos.1945 & 1946/Mds/2013 (A.Ys. 2007-08 and 2008-09). The issue raised by the Revenue in these appeals is with regard to cancelling the protective assessment for the assessment year 2008-09 as the income assessed was based on the income admitted by the assessee. Since, we have confirmed the substantive assessment with certain directions in the assessee's appeal for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos. 1945 & 1946/Mds/2013 for the A.Ys. 2007-08 and 2008-09 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. 30. ITA Nos.1785 to 1788/Mds/13 (Assessee) : These are penalty appeals directed against the common order of the CIT(Appeals) dated 28.3.2013, wherein the CIT(Appeals) sustained the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act at 100% of tax sought to be evaded instead of 300% levied by the A.O. in respect of quant....