9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsaction entered by the assessee. Further, before the assessing officer and Commissioner (A) , it was never controverted by the assessee that why on the reverse of page 1 of the sale agreement fact of agreement without giving possession to the buyer is mentioned. In view of this facts, we confirm the order of CIT (A)’s and hold that the no weightage can be given to a notarized agreement to sell executed between the parties on 14th may 2007 in preference to registered sale deed executed by the assessee before registrar wherein it is stated that the possession is given along with the sale deed executed on that date. In view of this, we are of the view the capital gain is required to be assessed in assessment year 2009 – 10, and there is no er ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax (appeals), Meerut. 2. The only grievance of the assessee is that Ld. assessing officer has ignored the facts completely that the full consideration of money was received by the assessee for transfer at the time of agreement for sale and the possession of the land was given to the purchaser on 14/05/2007. Therefore, the transaction based on sale deed could not have been assessed in assessment year 2009 10, is in error in not considering the provisions of section 247 of the income tax act, 1961. The other grievance without prejudice to ground No. 1 was that there the assessing officer is not justified in taking the cost of acquisition as on 01/04/1981 at the rate of ₹ 70 per square yard whereas the agricultural land situated in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the sale deed. As everything has happened other than, registration and execution of sale deed in FY 2007 08-sale transaction cannot be subject to tax in A. Y 2009 10. Ld. assessing officer recorded the salient features of the transaction, which are as under:- a. The assessee owned 6019 m land, which was ancestral. on 2nd November 2016 assessee entered into agreement for sale with others for sale of land for ₹ 10,80,0000/-and received advance of ₹ 50 Lacs on 2 different dates. b. On 14/05/2007, assessee received ₹ 50 Lacs further and for balance amount of ₹ 50.80 lakhs assessee received 2 separate cheques of ₹ 25.40 lakhs each. c. On 25th of April 2008 out of the above land, half of the land mea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Hence, according to him as the assessee has already received the full consideration in previous years, and possession has also been given of that property capital gain thereon cannot be charged in the hands of assessee in this year. 7. Against this Ld., departmental representative relied on the orders of lower authorities and submitted that there is no reference of handing over possession in any of the agreement to sell. However, sale deed clearly says that possession of the property is given at the time of sale deed executed by the assessee and hence the capital gain has rightly been taxed in the hands of assessee for this year. He further argued that assessing officer has noted that on reverse of page No. 1 of the sale agreement stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee for the transfer of land is a notarized agreement for sale dated 14th of May 2007. In view of contradictory agreements/documents executed by assessee himself it would be always preferred to give credence to the document that has been submitted before the land revenue authorities. In this case, before land revenue authorities sale deed is executed where assessee has confirmed that possession of the property is given at the time of execution of sale deed. The other agreement which is agreement to sell, which is not registered with any statutory authority, but only between buyer and sellers which is notarized does not give any credence to the transaction entered by the assessee. Further, before the assessing officer and Commissioner (A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bjection before assessing officer, therefore, this ground of appeal does not emanate from the assessment order or from the appeal before CIT (A), hence this ground of appeal may be dismissed. 10. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. From the order of CIT (A), we have perused relevant six grounds of appeal taken before him. On reading of those grounds of appeal, we could not find any ground taken by the assessee regarding adoption of the cost of acquisition and thereby determining the fair market value of the property on 1-4-1981. On reading order of the assessing officer, also we could not find any objection before the assessing officer on adoption of such rate. It is undisputedly concurrently before the lower authorities, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
