TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 230
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 1961, and the Rules made there under. 1(b) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the authorities below failed to appreciate that the capital gain is chargeable to tax in the previous year 2011-12 being the transfer of capital asset completed on receipt of the entire consideration amount and not on the date of registration of sale deed, which is wrong and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961, and the Rules made there under. 2(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned authorities below ought to have allowed the exemption of long term capital gain under section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being capital gain utilised for purchase of residential house within the prescribed time limit and not doing so is wrong and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961, and the Rules made there under. 2(b) The appellant prays that, the provisions of section 54 are beneficial provisions and are to be considered liberally in the aspect of limitation period. 3. On facts and in circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed sum was received as a consequence of sale of the aforesaid property, and could not be assessed as income from other sources. The CIT(A) called for a Remand Report from the Assessing Officer. In the Remand Report furnished by the Assessing Officer, the long term capital gain was computed at Rs. 66,48,023/- after considering the sale consideration of Rs. 1,03,05,000/- and reducing therefrom the indexed cost of acquisition, etc. of Rs. 36,62,977/-. Before the CIT(A), assessee also put-forth a claim for exemption under section 54 of the Act with respect to investment made in the purchase of a new residential house (flat). The CIT(A) accepted the working of long term capital gain and deleted the addition of Rs. 1,03,05,000/- made under the head 'other sources'. So, however, he did not allow the claim of exemption under section 54 of the Act. 5. In the above background, the assessee is in appeal before us. Before us, assessee has raised a preliminary plea, which was hitherto not raised before the lower authorities, which is to the effect that during the year under consideration there was no "transfer" of a capital asset so as to trigger the provisions of Capital Gains tax. In this co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was not before the lower authorities and, in fact, the CIT(A) has clearly denied the claim of exemption u/s 54 of the Act and the Capital Gains have been brought to tax based on the Remand report furnished by the Assessing Officer. 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Ostensibly, at the level of the Assessing Officer it transpires that in the absence of any appearance by the assessee, the amount of Rs. 1,03,05,000/- appearing in the Individual Transaction Statement was treated as income from other sources. It is only before the CIT(A) that the assessee furnished the material and evidence to show that the amount represented the sale price of the property sold by the assessee. The CIT(A) has called for a Remand report from the Assessing Officer, who also accepted the nature of the impugned sum as being the sale price for the property sold. The Assessing Officer computed the Long Term Capital Gains at Rs. 66,48,023/-, which has been accepted by the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) has not accepted the plea of the assessee of having invested the Capital Gains in the purchase of a new residential flat for the reasons assigned in his order. Before us, a pertinent plea has b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich falls in the next assessment year. The aforesaid clauses bring out that the Agreement for Sale dated 28.03.2011 envisages that the sale would be completed only on receipt of full and final consideration. Clause 11 of the Agreement, which we have reproduced above, is quite clear on this point. Insofar as the proposition being sought to be canvassed by the assessee is concerned, the same is prima facie supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Shah Jagati (supra) wherein it is laid down that in order to understand the meaning of the word 'transfer', possession is an essential element to be taken into consideration. Before proceeding to adjudicate the plea of the assessee in a full blown manner, in our view, the same is required to be properly examined by the lower authorities which, in the present case, has not been done. Ostensibly, the said plea was not before the lower authorities and is sought to be raised only before us. At the time of hearing, the learned representative has also referred to certain additional evidences, which were not before the lower authorities, but which according to him are crucial to adjudicate the said contr....