The real beneficial owner is to be considered and not the legal owner.

J.K. Ranka J.

The instant income tax appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has been preferred by the appellant-Revenue assailing the order dated December 31, 2014, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur. It relates to the assessment year 2009-10.

2. Brief facts noticed are that the respondent-assessee was drawing income from salary and income from house property and was also director of private limited companies which were, inter alia, engaged in the business of real estate i.e. development of township, etc.

3. An information was gathered by the Assessing Officer (for short "AO") that the assessee had sold immovable property, situated at village Basda Alias, Khasra No. 6/1 and 6/4, Govindpura, Tehsil Phagi, District. Jaipur measuring 9 Bigha 4 Biswa to M/s. Grass Field Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. where the assessee is a director. It came to the notice of the Assessing Officer that the said land was purchased by the assessee on March 24, 2007 for Rs. 15,00,000 and sold on September 18, 2008 for a consideration of Rs. 1,39,60,080 and thus the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the resultant gain being a short-term capital gains amounting to Rs. 1,23,47,880 was liable to be taxed as short-term capital gains. The assessee, inter alia, contended that the land in question was an agricultural land, the same was purchased for and on behalf of M/s. Grass Field Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd., the company in which the assessee being a director and the said company was engaged in the business of real estate and the company purchased land for his own use and in the name of its director as agent for convenience and the land purchased by the company in its agent's name (director's name) has been accounted for in the books of the company and taken as stock in trade of the company and copy of stock statement as on March 31, 2008 forming part of the company's balance-sheet as on March 31, 2008 was attached with the reply. It was also contended that the private limited company sold the aforesaid land for a consideration of Rs. 1,39,60,080 and that such land is duly accounted for in the books of the company and the company has duly paid the business profits for the assessment year 2009-10 and it was contended that only for convenience the land was purchased in the name of the director otherwise it has been accounted for by the company. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied and inter alia brought to tax the resultant difference of Rs. 1,23,47,880 as a short-term capital gains.

4. The said assessment was assailed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (for short, "CIT(A)") reiterating the same facts and bringing to notice of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) the fact that the entire transaction was duly recorded in the books of account of the limited company. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepted contention of the assessee and deleted the addition holding that the land has been consistently shown in the books of the company M/s. Grass Field Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. in which the assessee was a director and even in the case of company, no finding was given that this land did not belong to the company.

5. A further appeal by the Revenue before the Tribunal, the same also resulted in dismissal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that sale deed was in the name of the assessee and even in the sale deed, there was no mention as to the assessee having purchased for and on behalf of M/s. Grass Field Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and no proper information was placed on record by the assessee before the authorities concerned. He further contended that no material was brought on record as to how it related to or was owned by M/s. Grass Field Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. He further contended that findings by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal are perverse and substantial question of law emerge out of the order of the Tribunal.

7. We have heard le