PRAKASH R. HIRANI,MUMBAI vs. FORMERLY ITO WARD 15(1)(4), MUMBAI

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 12.02.2016 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (for short ‘the CIT (A)’)-44, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2011-12, whereby the Ld. CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee against assessment order passed u/s 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’).

Brief facts of the case are that the assesseean individual running a proprietary concern filed its return of income for the assessment year under consideration declaring the total income of Rs. 2,37,371/-. Since, the case was selected for scrutiny, AO issued notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act.In response to the said notices authorized representative of the assessee appeared and submitted the details called for.

The assessee has challenged the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) on the following effective grounds:- 1. “In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming A.O’s action of taxing capital gain on sale of plots at Nasik in A.Y. 2011-12, though transfer within the meaning of sect. 2(47) of the Income Act has taken place on 31st March 2010 which pertains to A.Y. 2010-11.

Without prejudice to above grounds in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the A.O. of not referring the matter under section 50C(2) of the I Tax Act to the valuation officer.”

Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT (A) has wrongly confirmed the action of AO because the transfer of said property 3 Assessment Year: 2011-12 has been taken place on 31st of March, 2010 within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act, i.e. during the year relevant to the assessment year 2010-11 and not during the year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. The Ld. counsel invited our attention to the copy of deed of conveyance for permanent sale dated 31.03.2010 in which it has been mentioned in clause 4 that physical and vacant position of the Plots have been handed over to the purchaser in presence of the witnesses and in clause 15 in which it is mentioned that the purchased has paid Rs. 19,00,000/- vide cheque dated 25.03.2010 and the remaining amount to be paid within three months. The Ld. counsel further submitted that though the sale deed was registered on 01.04.2010, but the transfer within the meaning of section 2 (47) of the Act had taken place on 31.03.2010. Therefore, the capital gain is not taxable in the assessment year under consideration. The Ld. counsel further contended that the assessee had already reflected the said income in its return for the assessment year 2010-11. The Ld. counsel submitted the copy of income tax return for the assessment year 2010-11 filed on 12.03.2014. Further, the Ld. counsel relying on the judgment of order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurbax Singh vs. Kartar Singh and others 254 ITR 112 (SC), submitted that when two documents are executed on the same day, the time of their execution would determined the priority irrespective of time of their registration. The one which is executed earlier in time will prevail over the other executed subsequently. Therefore, the Ld. CIT (A) has wrongly confirmed the addition made by the AO in the assessment year under consideration.

On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) relying on the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) submitted that since the sale deed was registered on 1st April, 2010 i.e. in the financial year 2010-11, the Ld. CIT (A) has rightly confirmed the addition on account of long term capital gain. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and also gone through the material on record. The contention of the assessee is that since, the capital gain pertains to the assessment year 2010-11 and the same has reflected in the computation