TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1901
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in law the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee that the Long Term Capital Gain would be assessable only in the year in which the entire consideration was received from the Developer as per Development Agreement. The assessment under appeal be cancelled as the capital gain is not assessable in the year under appeal as per law. 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee family that the family was partitioned on 21-08-2000 and each of the members were independent owners of the property. Such capital gain was assessable in their own hands. 3) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... law the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in assessing the Long Term Capital Gain in the hands of the assessee but it should have been assessed in the hands of the members independently as claimed due to partition/family arrangement. 7) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C is not justified. 3. The ground of appeal No.1 raised by assessee is against the assessment of income from long term capital gains in the hands of assessee in the year when the assessee had entered into Development Agreement. 4. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the case of assessee was reopened by recording reasons for reopening the same and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Thereafte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee was not working and had no income and her husband was working in the Government Department as Veterinary doctor. Her husband had purchased the said residential house in her name on 21.07.1989 for Rs. 75,000/-. All the family members were residing in the said property but since the sons and daughters had got married, they were living separately from father and mother. The partition was made in the year 2000 and as on 01.10.2011, the assessee and her sons and daughters had entered into Agreement for Development of the said house with the builder and hence, the names of other members were as consenting parties in the Development Agreement. The plea of assessee was not accepted and the Assessi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....epartmental Representative for the Revenue placed reliance on the orders of authorities below. 10. On perusal of record and after hearing both the learned Authorized Representatives, the issue which arises in the present appeal is whether the income from capital gains is to be assessed in the hands of assessee in the year under appeal. The assessee had acquired the property in the year 1989 which was registered in the name of assessee. The Assessing Officer holds that the said property was acquired out of funds of husband as the assessee had no income. On the other hand, the plea of assessee was that the said property was acquired out of joint funds and jointly belongs to all the members of family i.e. assessee, her husband and her sons ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....said property, as per clause (4) of the Agreement. It was also agreed that the owner and the developer shall jointly own the portion of the developed property, under which developer was constructing ground + four storied building over the said plot of land. The said Development Agreement was executed on 01.10.2011. The assessee is in appeal for assessment year 2012-13 i.e. the financial year in which the Development Agreement was entered into between the parties. At the time of entering into Development Agreement, the assessee received only sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- which was though called as entire consideration amount, was actually part of consideration amount since the assessee was also entitled to receive six constructed flats on different ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Court in Civil Appeal No.15645 of 2017 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.1565 of 2016, judgment dated 04.10.2017 had held in similar circumstances that section 2(47)(v) of the Act is not attracted in the facts of the case. 12. Applying the said ratio to the facts of the present case, I hold that no capital gains has arisen in the hands of assessee on the date of entering into Development Agreement and the computation of long term capital gains in the hands of assessee is not warranted, since the property has not been developed and the assessee has not received constructed portion which is allocated to her share. In such circumstances, order of CIT(A) is reversed and hold that there is no merit in assessing the income fro....