2017 (11) TMI 983

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....situated at E-102, East of Kailash, New Delhi by the Appellant for a consideration of Rs. 3 crores was not assessable as long term capital gain under the head 'capital gain'; ii) the claim by the Appellant of investment of the long term capital gain arising out of the sale of above property in the purchase of 1 /3rd share of property situated at 212, Kailash Hills, New Delhi for Rs. 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, relyin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e raised is fully covered in favour of the assessee in the case of the co-owner, Rajendra Kanodia & Sons (HUF) assessment year 2012-13, who had sold 50% of their share in the same property i.e. E-102, East of Kailash, New Delhi, wherein the Assessing Officer in the assessment framed 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Ltd. on the basis 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 a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ot supplied to 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 t....