TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 82
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... circumstances of the case, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The authorities below failed to appreciate that the assumption of jurisdiction to make assessment in the hands of Appellant in respect of the property that belonged to the Appellant's father's family is illegal and unsustainable on facts and in law. 3. The authorities below failed to appreciate that the development agreement was entered into by Sri G. Sukender Reddy along with his brothers and sisters and if at all the capital gains were to be assessed, the same should have been assessed in the hands of G. Sukender Reddy and his brothers HUF. 4. Without prejudice, the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vidence why the capital gain should not be computed in pursuance to the joint development agreement. Since no response from the assessee, the AO has taken into account the share of the assessee's father late Shri G. Sukhender Reddy, has calculated long-term capital gains by taking into account 1/4th share of the total land area and made addition towards long-term capital gain at Rs. 22,76,146/-. 3. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee appeared before the ld.CIT(A). Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee has challenged the reopening of the assessment on the ground that the property belonged to the HUF, and thus, the question of capital gain is not assessable in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, there is no nexus betwe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee's father's family is illegal on facts and unsustainable in law. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that the assessee has already paid capital gain tax on the basis of the joint development agreement between him and the respective builder on the basis of the plan sanctioned by the local authorities, which falls in the assessment year 2015-16. Further, the assessee has also paid capital gain in respect of sale of flats in the assessment year 2018-19. Therefore, once again levying tax on capital gain for the impugned assessment year amounts to double taxation, which is not permissible under the law. 6. The ld. DR Shri T. Venkanna, on the other hand, supporting the order of ld.CIT(A) submitted that the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reement between the assessee's father and his family members, and the only question that left for us to decide is whether such capital gain tax is leviable for A.Y. 2012-13 or 2015- 16. The assessee claims that although the joint development agreement was entered in the F.Y. 2011-12, the relevant A.Y. 2012-13, but nothing has happened on the ground that the developer has not started any construction. Only after sanction of the plan for A.Y. 2014-15, the developer has undertaken the development activities. Therefore, the assessee has computed long term capital gains for A.Y. 2015-16. We find force in the arguments of the counsel for the assessee because just because joint development agreement is entered, it cannot be said that the transfer ....