Raj Kumar Goyal, Bharatpur vs Acit, Bharatpur on 16 January, 2018
The companies which had joined as partners (a) and (b) are renowned real
estate and property development companies and the other partner Mr.
Devadoss is the promoter of those companies. As per the partnership deed,
the main object of the firm is to carry on the business of real estate
development, property development, builders, civil contractors, buyers,
sellers, developers of land into housing plots/sites. The partners have
introduced their land worth ₹.4.54 crores (being land in Melpakkam village)
as capital contribution. As per clause 2 of the partnership deed, the partners
are required to make capital contribution to the firm for its business
requirement. On sale of property as detailed above, the assessee has taxed
the profit on sale of land under income from long term capital gains after
indexation and paid due tax. However, the Assessing Officer treated the profit
on sale of land as business income instead of capital gains, which was
confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). Against the reliance of CBDT Circular No. 4/2007
dated 15.06.2007, the ld. CIT(A) was of the opinion that the same was issued
specifically in the context of investments in securities and cannot be
applicable to the facts of the current case. According to the ld. CIT(A), even if
one tried to apply the above circular, as relied by the assessee by quoting the
6 I.T.A. Nos.3358 & 3359/Chny/2018
decision of ITAT, Pune in the case of Shri Krishna Kumar K. Goyal, Shri Vinit
K. Goyal v. ACIT in I.T.A. Nos. 1299 & 1300/PN/2012, the facts appreciated
in that case was entirely different from the facts of the current case. In that
case, as per the ld. CIT(A), for many years, the land was shown in the
balance sheet as 'Personal asset', as a part of investments and other land
held as stock-in-trade were separately disclosed in the balance sheet as well
as in profit and loss account as 'business assets' and such position was also
accepted in the past years even in scrutiny assessment finalized by the
Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(A) also noted the fact that in that case the land
was held for a fairly long period of 9 to 10 years before being sold and there
was no trading activity. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was of the opinion that the
CBDT circular as well as case law relied as above, had no application to the
facts of the present case. At this juncture, we need to have a look on circular
No. 6/2016 dated 29.02.2016, where the CBDT has clarified at (b) of para 3
as under: