TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 729
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi ("Ld. CIT(A)"), dated 04.12.2024 & 05.12.2024 respectively for the A.Y. 2013-14. Since the grounds raised by the assessees are identical, they are heard together and one consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA No.229/Hyd/2025 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : Section No. Grounds of Appeal Sec. 154 The Order passed by the Ld. AO ought to be subjected to rectification in as much as the actual share of the Appellant out of the co-owners falls to only 5.33 percent but the Orders were framed considering 16 percent falling to the share of all the three brothers which would vitally affect the proceedings. Sec. 48 On the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was issued to the assessee on 29.07.2022. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed return of income on 29.01.2023 declaring total income of Rs. 5,16,650/-. During reassessment proceedings, on the basis of submissions of the assessee, the Ld. AO noticed that the assessee along with three others had entered into a Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney ("JDA") with M/s. Shriyam Infrastructure("Developer") on 02.03.2013. As per the said JDA, the assessee and the other three persons were joint owners of land measuring 6380 sq. yds. on which they agreed to permit the developer for construction of a multi-storeyed residential complex. The JDA provided that the total constructed area would be 1,28,350 sq. ft., out of which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the land shall be deemed to have been delivered only at the time of formal handing over of the builtup area falling to the share of the landowners, and until then, the developer had no rights of absolute possession. It was further contended that during the year under consideration, the absolute possession of land was not handed over to the developer. The Ld. AR also submitted that no consideration had been received by the assessee or the other landowners during the year under consideration from the developer. Therefore, the requirement of "transfer" under section 2(47)(v) of the Act was not satisfied. He also invited our attention to para no. 4.5.1 of the order of the Ld. AO, wherein the Ld. AO has stated that the photographs of the proper....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ect : " 10. That the First Party land owners have granted license to the Second Party to enter the land under development to the Second Party developers for the limited purpose of carrying on the construction activity in accordance with terms mentioned herein, and the possession of land for all practical and administrative purpose be deemed to have been given only at the time of passing of consideration in the form of built up area handed over to the landowners i.e., the First Party. However the First Party Land Owners shall not be entitled to interfere in the construction activity in any manner or obstruct the Second Party developers in connection with the process of construction or in taking any decision, in appointing the employ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the Ld. AR regarding the validity of issue of notice under section 148 of the Act and deduction under section 54F of the Act, since we have already allowed the appeal on merits, these issues are kept open and not adjudicated. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No.228/Hyd/2025 12. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : Section No. Grounds of Appeal Sec. 154 The Order passed by the Ld. AO ought to be subjected to rectification in as much as the actual share of the Appellant out of the co-owners falls to only 5.33 percent but the Orders were framed considering 16 percent falling to the share of all the three brothers which would vitally affect the proceedings. Sec. 48 O....