Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2018 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 308 - HC - Income TaxAccrual of income - Income in respect of sale of flats accrued when possession of the flat was given and not when allotment letter was issued - genuineness of the letter of possession - Held that:- From the clauses of the allotment letter and clause 9 of the possession letter referred to by the Tribunal it is very evident that the possession of the flats was given on receipt of total consideration only on 1 April 2007. Clause 8 of the allotment letter which is been relied upon by the Revenue does not in any manner indicate that possession was given on 15 March 2007. It only states that the electricity and other charges in respect of the flat being sold to two buyers would be borne by the buyers after the possession of the two flats are handed over to buyers. It does not even remotely suggest that the responsibilities for payment of charges in respect of the said flat was on the buyer from the date of the allotment. This coupled with the fact that the Tribunal records as a matter of fact that there is no dispute about the genuineness of the letter of possession dated 1 April 2007. Moreover, no statement of the buyers or other evidence, even circumstantial in nature, was brought on record to indicate that the facts are different from what has been recorded in the possession letter dated 1 April 2007. In the aforesaid facts, the view taken by the Tribunal on the self evident terms of allotment and possession letter does not give rise to any substantial question of law. It must also be borne in mind that the aforesaid amount which is being sought to be brought to tax in the subject Assessment Year 2007-08 has been offered to tax as income by the Respondent in the next Assessment Year. It is not the case of the Revenue that there are circumstances to indicate that by bringing the said transactions to tax in the next Assessment Year instead of this, there is likely to be a loss to the Revenue. No substantial question of law
|