SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Bom) 197

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Dhiraj Singh Thakur, Kamal Khata, JJ.
Late Bharat Jayantilal Patel - Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 1612 of 2022
Decided On : 10-02-2023

Advocates:
Counsel for Appearing Parties
Vasudev Ginde, Advocate, Kumar U. Kale, Advocate, Suresh Kumar, Advocate

The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'allowing the possession' under Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, and the application of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, in determining the escapement of income from the transfer of land.

Headnote:

Income Tax - Reopening of Assessment - Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 148 - Section 2(47)(v) - Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Fact of the Case:

The Petitioner challenges the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relevant to the assessment year 2013-14, seeking to reopen the assessment due to alleged escapement of income from the transfer of land to a developer.

Finding of the Court:

The Petitioner's objections to the reopening were rejected by the Assessing Officer, citing the judgment in Dwarkadas Chaturbhujdas Kapadia Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 260 ITR 491 and holding that the transfer of property under Section 2(47)(v) of the Act was complete when the developer was given irrevocable license by the land owner. The Petition is allowed, and the notice and order are set aside.

Issues: The main issue was whether the transfer of land to a developer constituted 'allowing the possession' under Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, warranting reopening of assessment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of Section 2(47)(v) and Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as established in the judgment in Seshasayee Steels (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, to determine that the development agreement permitted construction on the land only as a licensee, which did not amount to granting possession within the meaning of Section 53A.

Final Decision: The notice and order for reopening the assessment were set aside, as the court found that there was no tangible material or reason for the assessing officer to believe that any income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment.

JUDGMENT

Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J. - The Petitioner in the present Petition challenges inter alia the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') dated 22 March 2021 relevant to the assessment year 2013-14. By virtue of the said notice, assessment for the year 2013-14 is sought to be reopened, on the ground that the assessing offcer had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax for the assessment year 2013-14 had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act.

2 The reasons for reopening as furnished to the Petitioner are as under :

    'Reasons for reopening of the assessment

    1. Brief details of the assessee : The assessee is an individual.

    2. Brief details of the information collected/received by the AO : Information has been received from ADIT (Inv.) Unit-IV(2), Thane about assessee that assessee has given his land at Chikhloli for development to Sai Ashray Developers Pvt. Ltd. During the year, assessee Mr. Bharat J. Patel and two other co-owners have granted development rights in respect of their Land at Village Chikhloli located within Municipal Limits of Ambernath of SaiAshray Developers Pvt. Ltd., vide agreement dated 15.06.2012. As per Index II of the development agreement, the sale consideration is Rs.3 crore and the market value is 9.5994 crore. They have also executed a power of attorney dated 15-06.2012 authorizing the Builder to enter upon the said property for development. Further,

    1. As per the development agreement, developer shall develop the said properties at its own cost and shall give directly to the owners 36 % of the total constructed saleable area admeasuring 541556 sq. ft. total consideration for grant of development rights.

    2. As per the development agreement, developer paid 40 crore to land owners as refundable interest free deposit as on 15..06.2012 out of which 21 core has been paid to co-owners Darshana Anand Damle and Ashish Anand Damle.

    From facts mentioned above, it is clear that assessee transferred, as defned u/s 2(47) of the Act, land to the builder during FY 2012-13. Reliance is also placed on judgment by Honourable Bombay High Court in case of Dwarkadas Chaturbhujdas Kapadia & Others Vs. CIT 260 ITR 491 wherein it was held that transfer of property u/s 2(47)(v) of the Act is complete in the year in which builder is given irrevocable license by the land owner to enter upon the land to carry out construction.

    Further, it is also stated that the land in question is situated within municipal limits of Ambernath Municipality hence constitutes capital assets as per section 2(14) of the Act. Further, as per order dated 9 April 2012, issued by the O/o District Collector, Thane the said land has been granted the status of Non-agricultural land.

    In view of facts mentioned above, it is clear that proft arising from transfer of the land is taxable in hands of assessee during FY 2012-13. Market value of Rs.9.5994 corore or the market value of constructed saleable area of 541556 sq. ft. constitutes the consideration received by land owners.

    3. Analysis of information collected/received : Records of assessee available in the offce has been perused. It is found that as on 31.03.2014, assessee has received loan/deposit of Rs.24,60,00,000/- from Sai Ashray Developers Pvt. Ltd. Further, assessee has land plots in Chikhloli as per his details of immovable properties. Moreover, it is also seen that assessee has not offered capital gain during the year under consideration. Since assessee transferred, as defned u/s 2(47) of the Act, land to the builder during FY 2012-13, assessee should have offered capital gain on transfer of land during the year. On perusal of these facts and information received, prima facie, it is clear that proft arising from the said land transfer is chargeable to tax under capital gain during FY 2012-13. Thus, by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment of income which re

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

          Please visit our Training & Support
          Center or Contact Us for assistance

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top