TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 917X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is further strengthened by Section 47 of the Registration Act whereby it is provided that registered document shall operate from the date of its execution. We hold that transfer of capital asset had taken place in preceding A.Y. 2009-2010. Therefore, capital gain tax would not be chargeable in assessment year under appeal i.e., 2010-2011. The initiation of reassessment proceedings are illegal and beyond jurisdiction of A.O. We, therefore, set aside the Orders of the authorities below and delete the entire addition. In this view of the matter, there is no need to decide the other issues involved in the present appeal. We would like to make it clear that since assessee has declared capital gain in the return of income filed for assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee had signed a sale agreement with Shri Rajnish Karki for the sale of property L-1/13, Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi for ₹ 3,25,00,000/- . During investigation, it was also seen that assessee had 50% ownership in this property and Shri Roop Chand had the remaining 50% share in the property. On 07.08.2008, Sh Roop Chand released the ownership of his 50% share in favour of assessee for ₹ 29,00,000/-. Therefore, assessee became the full owner of the property in question. The property was sold to Shri Rajnish Kharki on 31.03.2009 for a consideration of ₹ 3.25 crores. It was also submitted that transfer of property was registered on 01.04.2009 through registered sale deed. The assessee did not showed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure was not allowable deduction. The A.O. ultimately made addition of ₹ 30 lakhs. Further, it was found that some expenses were made in the property in the period prior to the date of acquisition for which ₹ 3,58,067/- were disallowed. The assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment and the aforesaid additions before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the appeal of assessee has been dismissed. 3. We have heard the Learned Representative of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 4. The first and foremost question raised by the Learned Counsel for the Assessee had been that the transfer of property did not take place in assessment year under appeal, therefore, no capital gain i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... possession have been handed over to the purchaser. This agreement to sell is registered with the Sub Registrar. Thus, conditions of Section 2(47)(v) of the I.T. Act are satisfied in the sense that there is a transfer of immovable property on execution of the registered agreement to sell whereby part possession is of the property in question have been handed over to the purchaser, subject to part payment. The remaining conditions have been satisfied by handing over the entire possession of the property in question subject to remaining payment on execution of the sale deed dated 31.03.2009. Thus, the transfer of capital asset is completed in previous year relevant to preceding A.Y. 2009-2010. The Revenue has however been relying upon the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itle may not be transferred in law, there was, in substance, a transfer of title in fact. 5.2. Considering the facts of the case in the light of above discussion, it is clear that agreement to sell was executed and registered on 16.01.2009 whereby the part possession of the property in question have been handed over to the purchaser subjected to part payment. Therefore, transfer of capital asset completes in preceding A.Y. 2009- 2010. This fact is further strengthened by the fact that registered sale deed was executed between the parties on 31.03.2009 whereby the entire terms and conditions are satisfied. The full sale consideration have been paid and possession of the property have been handed over to the purchaser. This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
