TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 516
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee entered into a development agreement on 18.12.1996 with Ms Atrick Construction (P) Ltd, having its registered office at 328, Cuttack Road, BBSR for transfer of 450 dec, of land on 277 and 278/ Khata No.1406 for developing flats and garage over the said plot by the name Rashmi Vihar. As per the agreement, the assessee has received in financial year 2000-2001, 22% of the total built up area (i.e. 6607 sft.) consisting of 6 flats (Flat Nos.101,103,104 on the ground floor, 302 and 303 on second floor, 404 on third floor) besides 5 garages spaces (04.05,13,14,20) the total consideration of which would be around Rs. 33,00,000/- as detailed by the builder in their letter dated 18.1.2003. As per agreement dated 18th day of December, 1996, with the builder M/s Atrik Construction (P) Ltd., having its regd. Office at 328, Cuttack Road, Bhubaneswar, there was transfer of A.0.450 dec. of land on Plot Nos.277 & 278/Khata No.1406 for developing flats and garages over the said plot by the name of Rashmi Vihar Apartment. As per the said development agreement, 22% of the total built up area was received by the assessee and 7....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y received by the assessee when the property in which the late assessee's son and daughter had no share was handed over to the developer M/s Atrick Construction (P) Ltd, on 18.12.1996. It was clear that the land had been handed over for development and the said development was completed only in the financial year 2000-2001 since the impugned receipt of Rs. 3 lakhs was only an advance and not the full value of consideration. The assessee has argued that at the most the investment if any made by the developers remains a liability of the land owner against total cost of the asset newly constructed. This argument was inconsistent with and contradicts the claim of full transfer on 18.12.1996. The argument of the assessee was rejected and long term capital gain was rightly held to be computed in the financial year 2000-2001 when the inter se exchange (transfer) of land for flats was completed and concluded. This would mean that the sale consideration of Rs. 36,61,000/- would include the alleged advance received earlier of Rs. 3,00,000/-. However, since the sale consideration itself is not substantiated by the assessee and has been rejected, the figure of Rs. 3 lakhs will be included, if ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the assessee at Rs. 9,47,333 is higher than the advance received of Rs. 3,00,000, no Long term capital gain is seen to have been attracted in the hands of the assessee in the financial year1996-97. He further observed that even if the values of the costs of acquisition and expenses towards improvements claimed by the assessee are not accepted, the value of the land handed over (which equals by implication, the present financial value of the flats and garage spaces to be received in the future in Financial Year 2000-01) will be in excess of the known consideration received of the advance of Rs. 3,00,000 (as no other consideration has been shown to be received by the assessee). He further observed that also, if long term capital gain on the land is to be computed for the Assessment Year 1997-98, since the assessee is by virtue of the agreement getting in return the present financial value of the flats and garage spaces to be received in the future in financial year 2000-01, the later value will represent re-investment in residential house property which is tax-exempt u/s 54 of the Act. In short, no LTCG is likely taxable for the applicable Assessment year 1997-98. The CIT(A) th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er's estate throughout the lifetime of the mother, yet the son is given a position of eminence. The widow mother's seemingly absolute right in the husband's property is circumscribed by the rights of the son. Though the sons acquire ownership in father's property immediately upon the latter's death, the actual position, in respect of such ownership is postponed until the death of the mother. However, the sons may divide the property with the mother's consent. 10. In the instant case, it would mean that the action of the Assessing Officer in passing the impugned assessment order in the name of late Shri. Sitanshu Sekhar Chakraborty is correct in law since the matter in dispute relates to the transfer of land that was self-acquired by the deceased individual and, upon his death on 21.02.2006, held entirely by his sons daughters as tenants-in-common. This would mean that all of the sons and daughters of deceased assessee, including Shri. Bibhu Prasad Chakraborty would be his legal representatives. This would mean that Shri. Bibhu Prasad Chakraborty was only the legal representatives of the deceased assessee. 11. The CIT(A) further held that however, since the imp....