Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2025 (6) TMI 410

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....espectively. Since common issues are involved and facts are interlinked, both appeals are being disposed of by this consolidated order. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who entered into agreements to sell immovable properties in both assessment years under appeal. The original agreements were executed with M/s Hemali Resorts Pvt. Ltd., who subsequently assigned its rights to M/s APG Intelli Homes Pvt. Ltd., in whose favour the final registered sale deeds were executed. 2.1 In both years, the consideration mentioned in the sale deeds exceeded the amounts received by the assessee. The differential amounts were paid by the buyer directly to the confirming party, M/s Hemali Resorts Pvt. Ltd., under i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....relinquishment of rights and were not received or receivable by the assessee. 3.3 The AR relied on the judgment in Sanjeev Lal v. CIT [(2014) 365 ITR 389 (SC)] to argue that agreement to sell confers enforceable rights. Reliance was also placed on K.P. Varghese v. ITO (131 ITR 597), Paramjit Singh v. ITO (323 ITR 588), and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (243 ITR 83) to contend that no real income accrued to the assessee and there was no prejudice to the Revenue. 3.4 It was further pointed out that the amounts paid to Hemali Resorts were subjected to tax in their hands and therefore there was no loss to the exchequer. Consequently, the twin conditions for invoking section 263 - namely "erroneous" and "prejudicial to the interest of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Return of income filed for AY 2015-16 5 20.09.2016 Case selected for limited scrutiny through CASS 6 26.10.2017 Scrutiny converted to complete scrutiny with PCIT approval 7 29.12.2017 Assessment completed u/s 143(3); addition of Rs.79.17 crore LTCG 8 19.03.2020 First revision order passed u/s 263 by PCIT, Shimla 9 23.09.2021 Reassessment completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263; no variation in income 10 28.12.2023 Second show cause notice u/s 263 issued by PCIT, Chandigarh-1 11 20.03.2024 Second revision order passed u/s 263 (AY 2015-16) 12 17.03.2022 Revision order passed u/s 263 (AY 2017-18) 5.2 The above chronology clearly reflects that the Assessing Officer, pursuant....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bligations. There is no evidence to show that this amount accrued to or was for the benefit of the assessee. 5.7 When a third-party (confirming party) with a pre-existing contractual right receives payment for extinguishing its rights or rendering services, the same does not automatically become part of the assessee's consideration unless it was routed through or legally accrued to the assessee. 5.8 The decision in Sanjeev Lal (supra) affirms the binding nature of an agreement to sell and the consequent rights arising therefrom. Hemali Resorts had acquired such enforceable rights and was not a mere name-lender or intermediary. 6 The second invocation of Section 263, by the PCIT, Chandigarh-1, seeks to revisit the very same issue wi....