TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 1197
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounting to Rs. 5,317,088/-. iv. That the assessing officer has erred in making addition on account of capital gain, during the assessment year 2007 - 08, when no transfer of any capital asset had taken place during the financial year 2006 - 07. The assessing officer has erred in charging capital gain to assessment year 2007 - 08 instead of assessment year 2009 - 10, as the capital asset got transferred during the financial year 2008 - 09. v. That the assessing officer had erred in charging capital gain to tax in assessment year 2007 - 08 without bringing on record any documents/detail for review to the claim of the assessee for chargeability of income tax in assessment year 2009 - 10. vi. That the assessing officer had held in ignoring the revised return/competition filed by the assessee during the assessment proceedings, and thereby making the assessment on original return, without affording any reason for the same. vii. That the learned CIT - A had failed to consider the submissions made by the assessee and has passed the impugned order without appreciating the evidence already placed on record by the appellant company. The learned CIT - A failed to appreciate the merits ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee as one of the ventures in collaboration agreement as one of the co-owners of the property No. 67, Poorvi Marg, New Delhi, sold out her 1/3rd share in the property for Rs. 56,00,000/-. The total consideration of the property for the full for all three co-owners was Rs. 1,68,00,000/-. In response to notice under Section 148 of the Act assessee submitted a computation of total income and has shown capital loss of Rs. 82,911/- on sale consideration of Rs. 56,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer did not find the same computation proper. According to the Assessing Officer the sale consideration to be paid by the builder to the assessee was in two different modes. The assessee was paid along with other co-owners a sum of Rs. 1.68 crores and also consideration of entire basement, ground floor to 3rd floor comprising area of 269.27 sq. mts. And 77.5% un-divided ownership of the plot of land admeasuring 812.5 sq. mts. As per the agreement the builder was allowed to retain the third floor of 269.27 sq. mts. Therefore, the fair market value of the above 3rd floor was also required to be included in the full value of consideration. The fair market value of the above property was determined by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....property was 19.08.2005 on which construction was completed and possession was handed over to the assessee discharging all obligations of the collaboration agreement. Therefore, claim of the assessee is that income was assessable in Assessment Year 2009-10. The ld. CIT (Appeals) held that the date of the collaboration agreement of 1.06.2006 is registered during the year 2006-07 and part payment has also been received in that financial year. Further the buyer an Indian party has also made major part of the payment for 3rd floor on Rs. 4.34 crores during financial year 2006-07, therefore, the property had been transferred during others 2006-07 and capital gain is chargeable in assessment year 2007-08 and not in assessment year 2009-10 as claimed by the assessee. This is disputed by assessee before us. 9. With respect to the computation of the capital gain and determining the sale consideration he held that the ld. Assessing Officer has taken the worth of one floor of the property at Rs. 4.77 crores and consideration of Rs. 56,00,000/- totaling to Rs. 5.33 crores as the full value of consideration. He noted that the AO has ignored that the buyer has also purchased right on 22.5% of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been taxed in Assessment Year 2009-10. 13. The ld. Departmental Representative vehemently supported the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals) and stated that the transfer took place in Assessment Year 2007-08 and hence the ld. CIT (Appeals) is correct in holding so. 14. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The ld. AR has categorically stated that the collaboration agreement dated 1.06.2006 was not at all registered and the construction house was handed over by the collaborator on 19.08.2008 to the assessee, the only issue involved in this appeal is that whether the transfer took place in Assessment Year 2007-08 as claimed by the Revenue or in Assessment Year 2009-10 as claimed by the assessee. With respect to the registration of the collaboration agreement the honourable Supreme Court in paragraph number 20 in Balbir Singh Maini's case has held that:- "20. The effect of the aforesaid amendment is that, on and after the commencement of the Amendment Act of 2001, if an agreement, like the JDA in the present case, is not registered, then it shall have no effect in law for the purposes of Section 53A. In short, there is no agr....