TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1094
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....271(1)(c) of the Act was passed on 23.06.2025. It is further submitted that prior to the above, no notification in respect of the order passed by the learned Additional/Joint CIT(A) was received by the assessee, and the assessee also did not receive the impugned order at its registered e-mail address. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned order was served only on 23.06.2025, and thereafter, the necessary steps were taken to file the present appeal. Accordingly, the assessee prays for condonation of delay on the basis that the same was neither deliberate nor due to negligence on the part of the assessee. 3. Having considered the submissions of the assessee and perusal of the record, we are of the considered view that there was sufficient cause which prevented the assessee from filing the present appeal within the prescribed limitation period. Accordingly, we condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on the merits. 4. In this appeal, the Assessee has raised the following grounds: - "Ground No.1 Incorrect year of assessment 1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Honourable Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ['Hon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....HOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND 1 AND 2 Ground 3: Incorrect computation of long-term capital gains on sale of plot of land 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in computing the indexed cost of acquisition by applying Cost Inflation Index for the base year 2001 instead of 1981, which was applicable to AY 2016-17. Thus, this leads to incorrect computation of long-term capital gains. 2. Considering the above, the long-term capital gains computation is erroneous, excessive, and contrary to facts and law, the Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to recompute the long-term capital gains on sale of plot of land. Ground 4 Set-off of losses of current year of INR 16,61,909 1. This ground is consequential in nature and will not survive if the addition on account of capital gains is deleted. Ground 5: Levy of interest under sections 234B 1. This ground is consequential in nature and will not survive if the addition on account of capital gains is deleted." 5. The solitary issue that arises for our consideration, in the present appeal, pertains to the year of taxability of the sale tra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h a sale deed executed of the same date. It was further held that prior to 11.03.2016, there was no sale agreement/agreement to sale/contract and therefore, the claim of the assessee that pursuant to an oral agreement, the transfer was completed in the financial year 2009-10 and the property was sold to the purchaser has no value in the eyes of law as the ownership remains with the assessee. Therefore, the AO held that the transfer was completed only in the financial year 2015-16, which is relevant to the year under consideration. Accordingly, by applying the provisions of section 50C of the Act, as the stamp duty value on the date of exclusion of the agreement was higher than the sale consideration, the AO computed the long-term capital gains on the sale of plot of land at Rs. 41,79,538/-, and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 8. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal by the assessee on this issue and held that the contention of the assessee that property was transferred in the financial year 2009-10 only on account of receipt of consideration and transfer of possession of property cannot be accepted in the absence of registration of pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../- (Rupees Thirty One Lacs only) to the Vendor vide Cheque No. 086101 dated 24.10.2009 drawn on Bank of India, Dr. D.N. Road Branch, Mumbai. The said payment was accepted by the Vendor. F. Pursuant to the said oral agreement for sale and purchase and on the full payment of the consideration amount of Rs. 31,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty One Lacs only) as aforesaid and pending the execution of the Sale Deed by the Vendor in favour of the Purchaser, the Vendor put the Purchaser into peaceful vacant possession of the said Land and the Purchaser continues to be in full, complete and peaceful possession of the said Land." 10. The learned AR also submitted that the purchaser, in response to the notice issued by the AO under section 133(6) of the Act, vide its reply dated 26.11.2018, also confirmed the fact that physical possession of the plot was taken on 21.11.2009 upon payment of Rs. 31 lakh. Accordingly, it is the plea of the assessee that since the entire transaction took place in the financial year 2009-10 and payment of sale consideration as well as possession was also handed over to the respective parties in the financial year 2009-10, therefore, the capital gains, if any, a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....;" 12. We find that section 2(47) of the Act uses the word "or" instead of "and". Therefore, all the conditions as laid down in the provisions of section 2(47) of the Act are not required to be cumulatively satisfied, and even if any condition is satisfied, the capital asset can be considered to be transferred within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act. We find that, as per the provisions of clause (ii) to section 2(47) of the Act, the extinguishment of any right in the capital asset results in a transfer in relation to the capital asset. We are of the considered view that the term "any right" used in the aforesaid clause is of wide amplitude and includes within its meaning the possession rights handed over by the assessee to the purchaser in the impugned plot of land. In the present case, from the perusal of the record, it is evident that the assessee had transferred the possession rights over the plot of land to the purchaser in the financial year 2009-10, which fact is duly apparent from the reply of the purchaser in response to the notice issued under section 133(6) of the Act, as noted in the foregoing paragraph. Therefore, even though the Deed of Conveyance was execute....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 21. Now in the light of definition of "transfer" as defined under Section 2(47) of the Act, it is clear that when any right in respect of any capital asset is extinguished and that right is transferred to someone, it would amount to transfer of a capital asset. In the light of the aforestated definition, let us look at the facts of the present case where an agreement to sell in respect of a capital asset had been executed on 27th December, 2002 for transferring the residential house/original asset in question and a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs had been received by way of earnest money. It is also not in dispute that the sale deed could not be executed because of pendency of the litigation between Shri Ranjeet Lal on one hand and the appellants on the other as Shri Ranjeet Lal had challenged the validity of the Will under which the property had devolved upon the appellants. By virtue of an order passed in the suit filed by Shri Ranjeet Lal, the appellants were restrained from dealing with the said residential house and a law-abiding citizen cannot be expected to violate the direction of a court by executing a sale deed in favour of a third party while being restrained from doing so....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by an order of a competent court, which they could not have violated. 25. In view of the aforestated peculiar facts of the case and looking at the definition of the term 'transfer" as defined under Section 2(47) of the Act, we are of the view that the appellants were entitled to relief under Section 54 of the Act in respect of the long term capital gain which they had earned in pursuance of transfer of their residential property being House No. 267, Sector 9-C, situated in Chandigarh and used for purchase of a new asset/residential house." 14. In the present case, it is evident from the record that both parties, i.e., the assessee and the purchaser, agreed to the terms of the oral agreement, and the purchaser also made the payment of the sale consideration in the financial year 2009-10 itself. Furthermore, the purchaser took possession of the plot of land in the financial year 2009-10 upon payment of the sale consideration. Thus, in the present case, all the essentials of a contract, i.e., offer, acceptance and consideration, were fulfilled in the financial year 2009- 10. In the present case, there is no allegation of non-fulfilment of any condition of mutual agree....