2015 (9) TMI 1548

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....2010 declaring total income at Rs. 17,59,256/-, excluding agricultural income of Rs. 3 lakhs. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened for the reasons that assessee had not declared income from capital gains earned from transfer of land owned by the Punjabi Cooperative Housing Building Society Ltd., Mohali, of which the assessee is one of the members. As a result of assessment u/s 147 of the Act, income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 1,79,53,260/- The assessee was a member of Housing society of MLAs named as Punjab Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., Mohall which was the owner of 21.2 acres of land in Village Kansal, District Mohali. The said society entered into a Tripartite Joint Development Agreement on 25.2.2007 with M/s Has....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is material to the computation of income. Now we examine the facts of the present case. It is noteworthy that the view taken by the Assessing Officer that the amount of capital gains has to be computed by taking the total consideration, actually received or receivable by the appellant as sale consideration and that the total amount of capital gain is assessable as the income of the year under appeal has been upheld by the Tribunal. Therefore, the limited point for consideration is whether the appellant has a reasonable explanation for this omission to disclose the income by way of capital gains in the return. In the return filed on 30.10.2008 i.e. before the issue of notice u/s 148(on 31.12.2009), the appellant had disclosed the amount of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Singh, ITA. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has declared capital gains on the amount which was received by executing the sale deed and for agreement to sell regarding which no transactions were completed, no capital gain arises. He further pointed out that the assessee has disclosed all the particulars in the return of income as well as before Assessing officer. Therefore, on mere difference of opinion, penalty was correctly cancelled by the Ld.CIT(A). Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Ld. counsel for the assessee also submitted that the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in its recent decision in the case of Shri C.S. Atwal Vs. CIT, Ludhiana & Others in bunch of 85 appeals decided the quantum issue against the Revenue in ITA ....