TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 170
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugh unregistered sales agreement, GPA etc. is not valid in the eyes of law. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that conditions for exemption u/s 54B were not satisfied by the assessee in view of the fact assessee failed get property registered and also failed to get property recorded in her name in the Revenue records. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming that the possession of the land and the ownership vests with the appellant on the basis of the unregistered documents. 6. That the reliance placed by the Ld.CIT(A) on CIT vs. Ram Gopal 372 ITR is misplaced. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law while taking in consideration the evidence led by the appellant before him into consideration without any opportunity in rebuttal to the Assessing Officer which the appellant did not furnish during the assessment proceedings." 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s 54B of the Act and briefly stated facts are that the assessee is an individual file....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ia and to be treated as transfer of property in the eyes of law. However, the second transaction i.e., the transaction between the assessee and Smt. Sumitra Devi Gupta was not accepted by the Assessing Officer as he was of the view that this transaction has been undertaken merely to claim deduction u/s 54B of the Act. In coming to such conclusion the AO observed that the land purchased by the assessee was made through GPA and not registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, GPA is not valid mode of transfer as held by Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana (SLP(C) No. 13917 of 2009 dated 11.10.2011). The AO also observed that the assessee has not furnished any evidence of change of ownership in Revenue Department's records and Smt. Sumitra Devi Gupta has not responded to notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act to furnish copy of return already filed by her for the AY 2014-15. AO observed that in the absence of return of Smt. Sumitra Devi Gupta it is not evident whether sale consideration received by her was either disclosed for capital gains. Therefore, the AO was of the view that the transaction which was made through GPA, agreement to sell i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....R 22 (DEL) 3. Sanjeev Lal Vs. CIT 365 ITR 389 (SC) 4. Surinder Singh Vs. ITO ITA 3450/DEL/2017 11.10.2018 5. Gautam Jhunjhunwala Vs. ITO ITA 1356/KOL/2017 07.09.2018 8. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee in so far as ground no. 7 of the grounds of appeal of the Revenue i.e., not providing opportunity to the AO to rebut the evidences filed by the assessee before the Ld.CIT(Appeals) is concerned, referring to para 5.2.9 of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) order submits that in the course of appeal proceedings the Ld.CIT(A) required the assessee to furnish copy of ITR and computation of income for AY 2014-15 in respect of Smt. Sumitra Devi Gupta and in compliance to the directions of the Ld.CIT(A) the assessee furnished copy of ITR and, therefore, it is not an additional evidence furnished by the assessee under Rule 46A of the IT Rules. The Ld. Counsel submits that under provisions of section 250(4) the Ld.CIT(A) has ample powers to make any enquiries in appeal proceedings as he thinks fit. Therefore, there is no merit in the ground raised by the Revenue. 9. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities belowand the evidence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ration and for the reason that there is no mutation in the Revenue Records and the purchaser of the property Smt. Sumitra Devi Gupta did not respond to notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act. The AO also placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. he disbelieved the transaction as genuine. We find that in the course of appellate proceedings the assessee furnished copy of ITR of Smt. Sumitra Devi Gupta for the AY 2014-15 before the Ld.CIT(Appeals) as required by him. The Ld.CIT(A) considering the evidences furnished by the assessee and the submissions made before him allowed the deduction claimed u/s 54B of the Act. While allowing the deduction u/s 54B of the Act the Ld.CIT(A) had also followed the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ram Gopal and the decision of the Tribunal of the coordinate bench in the case of Surinder Singh Vs. ITO (supra) observing as under: 5.2.2 "As per assessment order, the AO recorded that the appellant had sold agricultural land measuring 8 Bighas i.e. 1/3rd share of the total agriculture land measuring 24 Bighas, out of Khasra No. 51/14 (4-16), 15 (4-16), 16(4-16), 17(4-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt pointed out that it is a case where the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had taken into consideration the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt. Ltd. (340 ITR 1 SC) and thereafter held that even provisional booking of property amounts to acquisition of new capital asset and thus entitled to exemption u/s 54. The Hon'ble Court in para 6 of its order in the case of Ram Gopal (supra) held that- "In the light of the definitions of "capital asset" u/s 2(14) and "transfer" u/s 2(47) as discussed in Gulshan (supra), this court has no doubt that the appellant's contentions were merited. The reference to Suraj Lamps (supra), in the court's opinion, is of no consequence because the Supreme Court, on that occasion had to deal with a property transaction and whether a sale transfer, based upon confirming a GPA, amounted to sale or conveyance. That decision did not consider - rather had no occasion to deal with section 2(14) and section 2(47) in the context of a claim of acquisition of rights of property and interest in a capital asset, for the purchase of Income-tax." 5.2.8 Regarding the AO's comment relating to the recordings in the Revenue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5.2.10 The Ld. AR of the appellant also relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Balraj Vs. CIT (254 ITR 22), Hon'ble MP High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ajit Singh Khajanchi (297 ITR 95) and the judgment of Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench 'G' New Delhi pronounced on 11.10.2018 in the case of Surinder Singh Vs. ITO (ITA No. 3450/Del/2017). I have perused these judgments and observed that judgment in the case of Ajit Singh Khajanchi (supra) and Balraj (supra) were prior to the judgment in the case of Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra), but the judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Ram Gopal (supra) and Sh. Surinder Singh are recent one which is after the judgment of the case of Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra). In this case, the benefit of exemption u/s 54 was denied to Sh. Surinder Singh, on the ground that the property was transferred by a General Power of Attorney (and not through Sale Deed) and vide order dt. 11.10.2018, the Hon'ble ITAT had allowed benefit of exemption u/s 54 to Sh. Surinder Singh relying on decisions of Delhi High Court in the case of Pace Developers and Promoters Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi. 5.2.11 After consi....