TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 1951
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under the head capital gains. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the L.T. Act. determining total income of Rs. 1,28,10,955/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee has shown the long term capital gain, but upon perusal of sale deed of land, the AO found that assessee is a 'Consentor' and not the owner of the lands sold. The AO thus found that the assessee had received the sum of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- as Consentor. The AO therefore, added the amount of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- received by the assessee 35 'income from other sources'. 3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee filed the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) after considering the case of both the parties had party allo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e sale deeds executed in respect of both the lands in lieu of which the assessee has received the substantial amount of Rs.1,25,00,000/-. The assessee upon having paid the entire purchase consideration of both the lands had been enjoying possession on the said lands. The assessee during the assessment proceedings has put forth his claim of having purchased and taken possession of the said lands, but the Assessing Officer has discarded the claim of the assessee merely on the ground that the assessee has been shown as a consentor in execution of sale deed in favour of the buyers of the land. The Ld. AO, thus without making any further investigation in this regard, has discarded the claim of the ownership of the lands by the assessee. The asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant from the buyers of the lands. It clearly shows that it is but for the reason that pursuant to execution of sale deed in 1998 & 1999 the assessee was in possession of the lands in question having the right, title and interest in both the lands in question that he had received the entire sale consideration of Rs.1,25,00,000/- excluding the amount of Rs.30 lacs paid to the said owners for executing the sale deed in favour of subsequent purchasers and getting the mutation entry transferred in their name in the Revenue records as per Maharashtra Land Revenue Laws. The ld. AO has thus not disputed the compensatory payment of R5.30 lacs to the original sellers nor brought on record any adverse material evidence to show that the assessee was no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hearing the arguments of both the parties, we find from the records that assessee had purchased the land through the registered sale deeds and sold the said land for a total consideration of Rs. 1,55,00,000/- through registered sale deed dated 21.04.12. The said sale deed executed by the assessee has shown as a 'Consentor' because the name of the assessee was not mutated in the government record and the purchaser was not ready to purchase the agricultural land without authenticity of land owner. Therefore in such circumstances, there was no alternative that the assessee how to sell the lands with original owners and therefore, assessee executed the sale deed in favour of purchaser in the capacity of owners and had infer the possessi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....find that Ld. CIT(A) had also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Khatunbi Babu Mulanl Died Lrs. Vrs. Rajesaheb Govindrao Patil and Ors. vide second appeal no. 547 of 2016 wherein it was held that it is well settled legal preposition that mutation entries do not confer title on the holder of the land or extinguish it. Revenue entries which are meant for fiscal purpose does not infer the long standing possession of deceased Khatunbi over the suit land on the ground of varied verdict of revenue litigation. Ld. CIT had also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bomby High Court in the case of Shrikant R. Sankanwar and Ors vrs. Krishna Balu Naukudkar (equivalent citation 2003(3) Bom CR 45, 2....