JUDGMENT : (P.S. Dinesh Kumar, J.) This appeal by the Revenue, directed against the order dated 15.03.2022 in ITA No.1624/BANG/2019 passed by the ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal), "A" Bench, Bengaluru, has been filed to consider following questions of law: 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of CIT(A) in deleting addition of Rs. 6,86,27,826/- made under the head of Capital Gains by invoking the provision of Section 2(47) of the IT Act without appreciating the fact that the capital gain for the land owner stands reckoned on the date of JDA since the builder acquires right to start construction on the given property to the extent of ratio as laid in the JDA agreement? 2. Whether the Tribunal's order can be said as perverse in nature in relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Balbir Sing Maini & Ors reported in (2017) 398 ITR 531 (SC) and Hon'ble ITAT's decision in the case of Dr. Krishna Prasad Mikkilineni v. DCIT (ITA No.929/bang/2018 dt:31.01.2022) considering the transfer has not been taken place during the year under consideration which is distinguishable to the present case and ignoring the materials brought on record in assessment order? 2. Heard Shri K.V.Aravind, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant-Revenue and Shri Annamalai, learned advocate for the respondent-Assessee. 3. At the outset, Shri S.Annamalai, submitted that the issue involved in this appeal is covered by the decision of this Court in Mrs.Margrit Goverdhan v. Income Tax Officer ITA No.328/2018 & connected cases . 4. Shri Aravaind, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue, refuting the submission of Shri Annamalai submitted that the facts are slightly different in this case and therefore, the issue is not covered by the said decision. 5. Brief facts of the case are, assessee entered into a JDA (Joint Development Agreement) dated April 3, 2013 with M/s Assetz Whitefield Homes Pvt.Ltd. for development of its property in Survey Nos.167/1 to 167/4 and other survey numbers, in all measuring 22 acres 23 guntas. As per the agreement, developer's share was determined at 70% and that of owner at 30%. 6. As per the agreement, developer's share was determined at 70% and that of owner at 30%. 6. For the A.Y. 2014-15, the A.O (Assessing Officer) has held that as per the JDA, the transaction attracted Section 2(47) of the I.T.Act Income Tax Act, 19614202 Taxmann 531 KAR and that the facts of the case are covered by the decision in CIT v. Dr.T K.Dayalu 202 Taxmann 531 KAR and added capital gains of Rs.6,10,73,524/-. 7. The CIT(A) (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) has partly allowed the appeal and held that assessee is not liable to pay capital gains tax for A.Y.2014-15. 8. The ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) has concurred with the view taken by the CIT(A). Hence, this appeal. 9. Shri Aravind's principal contention is that as per Clause 13.1 of the JDA, the owner of the land has simultaneously agreed to execute a power of attorney to do all acts and deeds in relation to rights, obligations and entitlements under the agreement as contemplated in the power of attorney. Therefore, according to him, once the power of attorney is executed, transfer of title takes place. According to him, as per clause 13.2, power of attorney empowers the developer to execute agreement to sell, construction agreements and sale deeds with prospective purchasers. In substance, Revenue's contention is that terms contained in Clauses 13.1 & 13.2 permits sale of units by the developer and therefore, facts of this case are not similar to ITA No.328/2018 and connected cases. With these submissions, he prayed for allowing this appeal. 10. Shri Annamalai for the assessee contended that Clause 13.1 of the JDA makes it clear that until conveyed to the purchasers of the units in the Project, the owner shall own the entire JD property and the developer shall own all structures, units, buildings and other infrastructure. According to Shri Annamalai, the assessee shall remain the owner of units till the date of conveyance. With these submissions, he prayed for dismissal of this appeal. 11. We have carefully considered rival submissions and perused the records. 12. Undisputed facts of the case are, as per para 3 of the JDA, the assessee shall continue to own the entire property under the JDA. With these submissions, he prayed for dismissal of this appeal. 11. We have carefully considered rival submissions and perused the records. 12. Undisputed facts of the case are, as per para 3 of the JDA, the assessee shall continue to own the entire property under the JDA. The relevant portion reads as follows: "Clause 3: Right to enter to develop the JD property Clause 3.1: Xxxxxxx Until conveyed to the purchasers of the units in the Project, the Owner shall own the entire JD Property and Developer shall own all structures, units, buildings and other infrastructure constructed, erected or installed by the Developer on the JD Property pursuant to this Agreement." (Emphasis Supplied) 13. So far as Clause 13 with regard to power of attorney is concerned, the said clause reads as follows: "13. Power of Attorney 13.1. The Owner shall simultaneously with the execution of this Agreement, execute and register power of attorney in favour of the Developer, to do all acts and deeds in relation to the rights, obligations and entitlements under this Agreement and as contemplated under the power of attorney ("Power of Attorney"). It is clarified that the powers provided under the Power of Attorney are administrative in nature. 13.2. The provisions of the Power of Attorney that empower the Developer on behalf of the Owner to execute agreements to sell, construction agreements and sale deeds with prospective third party purchasers shall become effective only upon Development Plan approval being obtained and the Development Plan Installment having been paid. The Parties agree that pending the aforesaid provisions coming into effect, the Developer shall be entitled to commence bookings of units and issue letters of allotment to prospective purchasers of units in the Projects, including receiving monies towards such bookings. Simultaneously with the payment of the Development Plan Installment, and if required by the Developer, the Owner undertakes to execute and register a document acknowledging that the Power of Attorney is fully effective and the Developer has powers to enter into agreements to sell, construction agreements and sale deeds with third party purchasers. 13.3. The cost of the Power of Attorney including, but not limited to stamp duty and registration fee, shall be borne by the Developer. 13.3. The cost of the Power of Attorney including, but not limited to stamp duty and registration fee, shall be borne by the Developer. It is hereby understood between the Parties that the Power of Attorney is coupled with interest and hence the said Power of Attorney is irrevocable and co-terminus with this Agreement in a manner that termination of this Agreement shall result in automatic revocation of the Power of Attorney, however, revocation of any or all the powers granted under the Power of Attorney shall not result in automatic termination of this Agreement. 13.4. The execution of the Power of Attorney as stated above is neither intended to nor shall it be construed as waiver, relaxation or discharge of any of the obligations of the Owner or the Developer under this Agreement." 14. In Clause No.13.1, it is clarified that the powers vested are only administrative in nature. Clause 13.2 shows that power of attorney shall permit the developer to enter into agreement to sell, construction agreements and sale deeds with the prospective third party purchaser. It is also clarified that the GPA shall become effective only upon approval of developmental plan and installment being paid. 15. A combined reading of Clauses 3.1 and 13 shows that parties have specifically agreed that assessee shall continue to own entire JD property until conveyance deed took place. Clause 13 is in consonance with Clause 3.1. There is no material on record to show that any conveyance had taken place in A.Y.2014-15. Unless, there is material to establish that there was any conveyance, the view taken by the A.O. is perverse and the said view has rightly been reversed by both CIT(A) and ITAT. 16. Therefore this appeal must fail and it is accordingly dismissed. The questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.