TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 404X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ipt. So far as objection of Assessing Officer that the stamp paper on which Sadakhat Kabja Receipt was executed is in the name of D. M. Singhla. No further enquiry was made by Assessing Officer either from the stamp vendor agency or from D. M. Singhla, advocate. In absence of any adverse evidence against the documentary evidences furnished by the assessee, the suspicion of Assessing Officer that Sadakhat Kabja Receipt is entry dated is not sustainable. Considering that substantial payment of consideration was paid on 29.09.2006 and that the property was ultimately transferred by agreement dated 29.09.2006. Thus, the property was clearly held for more than thirty six months. As the assessee clearly held the property/asset from part of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Short Term Capital Gain on the basis of purchase deed dtd. 05.12.2006 instead of Stakhat-cum-Kabja Karat dtd. 29.09.2006 on which date possession of land was taken and entire payment was made. The transaction should be treated as Long Term Capital Gain and addition should therefore be deleted. 2. The learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in not giving deduction u/s.54F of the Act ₹ 70,82,400/- for Investment in flat without appreciating the evidences showing the fulfillment of all the condition u/s. 54F of the Act. The deduction should be allowed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed his return of income of ₹ 31,81,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from 29.09.2006 to 29.10.2009, which is thirty seven months. The reply of assessee was not accepted by Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer took his view that on perusal of Sadakhat Kabja Receipt. The Assessing Officer noted that stamp paper for executing the receipt/agreement was purchased on 31.03.2006, in the name of Shri D. M. Singhla, Advocate who is neither the Advocate of the assessee nor has any relationship to him. And that at page no.13, it is mentioned that possession of property would be handed over on the execution of purchase deed. On the aforesaid observation, the Assessing Officer held that Kabja Receipt/Sadakhat is nothing but afterthought and attempt to set right the wrong claim of long term capital gain of the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uted on 05.12.2006. The assessee sold the said asset/ land by agreement dated 29.10.2009 for a sale consideration of ₹ 1.07 crore. The assessee clearly held the asset for more than thirty six months from the date of purchase on 29.09.2006 till 29.10.2009 and that the assessee s entitled for long term capital gain. The objection of Assessing Officer that is a stamp paper was purchased in the name of Advocate. The said advocate assisted the assessee in execution of Agreement/Sadakhat, though the stamp paper was purchased in the name of assessee. The said advocate merely collected the stamp paper from stamp vendor. 4. In support of his submission about the plea of qualifying period of long term capital gain, the ld. AR of the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re than thirty six months from 05.12.2006 and the capital gain so earned, on sale of such asset is clearly a short term capital gain. In support of his submissions relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Suraj lamp industries (P) Ltd Vs State of Haryana ( SPL No. 13917 of 2009) dated 11.11.2011. 6. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of the authorities below. We have also seen the documentary furnished by assessee carefully. In our considered view only short question for our consideration in Ground No. 1 is whether the capital gain, so earned by assessee, is long term capital gain or short term capital gain . The assessee before the Assessing Officer claimed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted is not sustainable. 7. Considering that substantial payment of consideration was paid on 29.09.2006 and that the property was ultimately transferred by agreement dated 29.09.2006. Thus, the property was clearly held for more than thirty six months. The Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ved Prakash Sons (HUF) (supra) held that when the assessee acquired the property under agreement dated 29.09.1970 on installment basis and was put in possession, the assessee was helped to be beneficial owner and on sale of said property on 10.02.1973 on payment of final installment, gave so rise was treated as long term capital gain. The Hon'ble High Court in para no.10 and its decision further held that bare readin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
