TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1774
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e on 07.07.2007 for the assessment year 2007-08 declaring total income of Rs. 97,530/-. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee has executed, along with his brother, a sale deed for sale of 9.75 grounds of immovable property during the previous year (i.e. on 29.03.2007) relevant to the assessment year 2007-08, in favour of Ceebros Hotels Private Limited. The value of the property for registration purpose was shown as Rs. 23,50,85,500/-. 3. When this was sought to be assessed, the Assessee claimed that out of the inherited property, 9.75 grounds of land held by him and his brother was given for joint development to Ceebros Hotels Private Limited and that a power of attorney was executed in November, 2003. Apart from the joint develo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the case of D.Kasturi v. Commissioner of Income Tax [251 ITR 532] and the ratio followed by the Jaipur bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Smt. Vijay Laxmi Dhaddha v. Commissioner of Income Tax [20 DTR 365] would apply to the present scenario. 5. Aggrieved, the Revenue preferred an appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue on the premise that (i) the Revenue has treated the transaction in respect of the land as a transfer in the assessment year 2004- 05 and accordingly, the Revenue cannot treat the transaction with respect to the same asset as a transfer in the assessment year 2007-08 also; (ii) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... M/s.Ceebros Hotels P Limited purchased the property for its own use? 4. Whether in the facts and circumstance of the case, whether the Tribunal is right in not holding that the transfer it at all had taken place, it was only in respect of 6.5 grounds and not in respect of 9.75 grounds? and 5. Whether the Tribunal is right in not considering the grounds put forth by the Revenue that the assessee and his brother are joint owners of the property and it was not lawful on the part of the assessee not to admit the capital gain on outright sale of 6.5 grounds in the year 2004-05 and that the same was totally offered only in hand of his brother? 7. The facts are that the Assessee, along with this brother one Vijay, owned 27.38....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been challenged by the Revenue and it has attained finality. 9. Nevertheless, the facts are that the Assessee and his brother had inherited 27.38 grounds having equal share. The Assessee and his brother entered into an agreement with Ceebros Hotels Private Limited, whereby, land measuring 6.5 grounds was outrightly sold to Ceebros Hotels Private Limited for Rs. 4,22,50,000/- and 9.75 grounds of land was valued at Rs. 6,33,75,000/-. Therefore, the sale was for total of 16.25 grounds. The Assessee and his brother retained 11.13 grounds. 10. The consideration of Rs. 4,22,50,000/- was paid during financial year 2003-04 relevant to the assessment year 2004-05. As regards the consideration of Rs. 6,33,75,000/-, Ceebros Hotels Private Limit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was not correct and that the transfer of property took place in the assessment year 2006-07 when sale deed was registered. He also submitted that possession was also handed over only in the assessment year 2006-07 and not in the assessment year 2003-04 and therefore, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) were wrong in rejecting the stand taken by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. 13. Shri. Sriraman submitted that the department had accepted the transfer in the assessment year 2004-05 and also levied tax thereon and it is not open today to again tax the same property in the assessment year 2007- 08. If Mr.Ravikumar's submission is to be accepted that the agreement was not registered, ....