TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1624
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... directing the A.O. u/s 50 C on the ground that lease holdright hold right are not covered under the purview of this section." 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ignored the fact that transfer of the property took place in the year under consideration on 01.10.2008." 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) ignored the fact that during the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant failed to file any detail of the purchase of the property." 5. The Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate the fact that it is the owner of the property who can sell the same. Before becoming the owner of a property, the same cannot be sold. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....taken sale price at Rs. 99.20 lakhs, the same will be long term capital gain and accordingly, added Rs. 99.20 lakhs. 7. The assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) and reiterated its claim that the right in the said property was extinguished in 2004 and, therefore, no liability arose during the year under consideration. 8. After considering the facts and submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the impugned addition by holding as under: "I have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant, the observations made by the A.O. in the Assessment Order and the facts of the case. The appellant was allotted a residential plot on 19.01.2004 in Sector-105, Noida through lottery on payment of allotment mone....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at he had sold all his rights in the property on 28.04.2004 by appointing Sh. Sanjay Kumar as his GPA according to which the GPA appointed by the appellant on 28.02.2004 continued to be valid and was not revoked till 01.10.2008. On that date it was the GPA, Sh. Sanjay Kumar who signed the deed of Transfer of lease hold rights in favour of the company M/s Rosebud Construction Pvt. Ltd. and not the appellant. The appellant's name in the deed of Transfer of lease hold rights was mentioned only because the original allotment was in his name. Therefore, as far as the appellant is concerned, he did not have ownership of the said property during the year under consideration and therefore, there is no question of any transaction of sale of the said....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ose in the year 2004 as the said provision as well as any profits or gains arising from transfer of capital asset effected in the previous year shall be chargeable to income tax under the head capital gain and shall be deemed to be income as previous year in which transfer took place. 14. Since the transfer has taken place in the year 2004, capital gains tax liability, if any, arose in that year. We, therefore, do not find any error or infirmity in the findings of the ld. CIT(A). 15. For the sake of completeness, the long term capital gain liability, as determined by the Assessing Officer is 99.20 lakhs, 20% of tax on which comes to Rs. 19.84 lakhs. Therefore, this appeal by the Revenue is also hit by the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 date....