TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 286
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') relating to the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2013-14 declaring total income of Rs. 28,18,740/-, comprising of income from business, capital gain and income from other sources. A search action u/s. 132 of the Act was conducted on 09.01.2013 in group cases the Shri Rashmikant Bhatt, which also included the case of the assessee. Pursuant to the search, the assessee filed his return of income u/s. 153A of the Act on 08.03.2014, declaring the same total income of Rs. 28,18,740/-. The assessee further claimed additional consideration of Rs. 50,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e said section. It is unambiguous from the section 54B that the period has to be counted from the date of transfer of the original asset to the date of purchase of the new asset. The original asset, the land at Bill has been transferred on 21/01/2010 and as per the charging provisions of capital gain specially section 48 the capital gain arose in that year irrespective of the fact that the consideration in full has been received or not. So even if the said amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- has been received in F.Y. 2012-13, in my considered view, the date of transfer of the original asset will remain 21/01/2010 only. And even if it is conceded that the new asset at Navapara has been purchased in April 2012, the said purchase of new asset is well be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsideration after the same became actually due and was received, both in AY 2013-14. Appellant further submits that charge of Income tax is always on real income and not on contingent income Le. there cannot be a tax on an income which may or may not come or which is not due at all. In the case of the appellant, the additional consideration may have not actually been received at all. It is not a case of deferred payment of agreed consideration. It is a case of contingent consideration which may not be received at all. Appellant would not have known while filings return for A.Y. 2010-11 when and whether such consideration will be actually received. Appellant having invested in new land within 2 years of receipt of continge....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e is having reinvested in new land within two years from the date of receipt of contingent additional consideration, the deduction u/s. 54B of the Act should be allowed. 6. The Sr. DR appearing for the Revenue, supported the orders passed by the Lower Authorities and requested to confirm the disallowance made thereon. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the material available on record. From perusal of the Assessment Order and Appellate Order, it is observed that the agreement entered between the seller of land and an escrow agent regarding payment of additional consideration was not properly verified by the Assessing Officer. The relevant extract of the agreement is reproduced below: "...However, since ....