9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 983X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n consideration. It is undisputed position of law that for the purpose of section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, “transfer” of immovable property is complete on handing over of the possession of the property on payment of sale consideration in performance of a contract of the nature referred to in section 53-Aof the Transfer of the Property Act. It is also undisputed fact that name of the owner on the record of House Tax and Electricity Departments is transferred on the basis of Registered Sale Deed only. Thus the report of the Income Tax Officer has no relevance. And above all, in the case of co-owner i.e. Rajendra Kanodia & Sons (HUF) who was owner of the 50% of the same property, the Assessing Officer in the assessment under section 14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the purchase of 1 /3rd share of property situated at 212, Kailash Hills, New Delhi for ₹ 2,90,00,000/- u/s. 54 of the Act was not allowable. iii) rejecting the Appellant's claim of assessment under the head capital gain in respect of transfer of immovable property within the meaning of Sec. 2(47) of the Act of the long term capital assets on the basis of superfluous enquiry carried out behind the back of the Appellant, relying on irrelevant considerations and ignoring crucial pieces of evidence on record in support of income; iv) the amount of ₹ 3 crores received as consideration on transfer of property situated at E-102, East of Kailash, New Delhi by the Appellant was assessable u/s. 56 of the Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... med under section 143(3) of the Act has accepted the claimed exemption under section 54 of the Act under similar facts. He drew our attention to page No. 55 of the paper book where a copy of the said assessment order has been made available. He submitted that the assessee had entered into an agreement to sell dated 25.03.2011 with Pushpanjali Investrade Pvt. Ltd. to sell her 50% share in the property situated at E-102, East of Kailash, New Delhi, for a consideration of ₹ 3 crores, subject to execution of sale deed on receiving full and final payment from them. Out of the above sale consideration of ₹ 3 crores, ₹ 2,50,00,000/- was received on 8.03.2011 through RTGS from ICICI Bank, having UTR No. ICICH 11067047050. The rema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asis that possession of the property was not handed over since the assessee failed to provide original possession letter and receipt of advance. The ld. CIT (Appeals) has held the same that possession letter was not signed by the buyer i.e. Pushpanjali Investrade Pvt. Ltd. or on its behalf by any other person. The ld. AR submitted that on receipt of total consideration the assessee had handed over possession of the property to the buyer, Pushpanjali Investrade Pvt. Ltd. and thus, transfer was complete under section 2(47) of the I. T. Act. In support he referred page Nos. 5, 8 and 46 of the paper book i.e. copies of possession letter, terms of agreement and financial statements of Pushpanjali Investrade Pvt. Ltd. The ld. AR also submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee, hence that report cannot be relied upon. 3.5 Considering the above submission even if we ignore the possession letter under the signature of the assessee stating that the possession was handed over to the buyer Pushpanjali Investrade Pvt. Ltd., there are other evidences to support the handing over of the possession of the property (50% thereof) to the buyer i.e. as per the clause 2 of the Agreement to Sell dated 25.03.2011, whereby it was agreed upon that the vacant physical possession of the property shall be delivered to the second party by the first party immediately after receiving the balance consideration amount at the time of Registry and / or final possession, as well as the financial statement of the buyer, Push ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the record of House Tax and Electricity Departments is transferred on the basis of Registered Sale Deed only. Thus the report of the Income Tax Officer has no relevance. And above all, in the case of co-owner i.e. Rajendra Kanodia Sons (HUF) who was owner of the 50% of the same property, the Assessing Officer in the assessment under section 143(3) for the same assessment year has allowed the claimed exemption under section 54 of the I. T. Act on the sale of their 50% of the property. Under these facts and circumstances, we hold that the Assessing Officer was not justified in denying the claimed exemption under section 54 of the Act to the assessee on the basis that possession of the property was not handed over to the buyer and thus, sal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
