Smt. Amarjeet Kaur, Delhi v. ITO, New Delhi

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.NO 5364/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 SMT. AMARJEET KAUR VS INCOME-TAX OFFICER A-156 SECOND FLOOR WARD 36(5) NEW DELHI. GUJRANWALA TOWN DELHI. PAN: AAJPK3543M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI CHARANJIT SINGH ADVOCA TE RESPONDENT BY: MS SHALINI VERMA SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 10.10.2019 DATE OF ORDER : 18.11.2019 ORDER PER K. NARSIMHA CHARY J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 26.07.2016 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-12 NEW DELHI {FOR SHORT CIT(A)} FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2012-13. 2. FACTS IN THEIR SHORT COMPASS ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND WAS DERIVING INCOME FROM BUSINESS I.E. INTERES T ON CAPITAL WITH M/S AMAR ENTERPRISES AS A PARTNER AND OTHER SOURCES. FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 SHE HAD FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 15/0 2/2013 DECLARING TAXABLE INCOME OF RS.1 44 220/-. 2 3. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT HAS COME T O LIGHT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE PLOT NUMBER H-358 VIKAS PURI NEW DELHI (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ORIGINAL PROPERTY) FROM ONE JASWINDER PAL SINGH FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.2 60 000/- AS EVIDE NCED BY AN AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED 03/01/1996. SHE SOLD THIS PROPERTY TO ONESMT. JASPREET KAUR FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.1.23 CRORES UNDER SA LE DEED DATED 29/4/2011. 4. LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT TO CLAIM THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) THE ASSESSEE HAD TO INVEST THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING OU T OF THE SALE OF THE LONG TERM CAPITAL ASSET WITHIN ONE YEAR BEFORE OR TWO YE ARS AFTER THE DATE OF TRANSFER AND/OR IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTI AL HOUSE PROPERTY WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF SUCH TRANSFER PROVIDE D THE HOUSE PROPERTY PURCHASEDOR CONSTRUCTED IS NOT TRANSFERRED WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ACQUISITION. HOWEVER ACCORD ING TO THE ASSESSEE THERE WAS A TACIT UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN HER AND THE PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL PURCH ASE BACK A PORTION OF THE HOUSE CONSTRUCTED ON THE ORIGINAL ASSET; THAT T HE BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE HOUSE WAS READY WITHIN ONE YEAR; THATTHE ASSESS EE AGREED TO PURCHASE THE UPPER GROUND FLOOR OF THE PROPERTY FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.1.23CRORES WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT THE POSSES SION OF THE UPPER GROUND FLOOR SHALL BE HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSEE A FTER THE COMPLETION OF THE FINISHING WORK; THAT A FORMAL AGREEMENT OF SALE TO THIS EFFECT WAS EXECUTED ON 30/3/2012; AND THAT THE SALE DEED WAS E XECUTED ON 9/7/2015 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY SMT. JASPREET KAUR. BASED ON THIS THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFF ICER THAT THE 3 CONDITIONS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT AR E COMPLIED WITH AND THE CAPITAL GAINS ARE EXEMPT. IT WAS FURTHER CONTEN DED THAT SINCE THE WHOLE AMOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION WAS INVESTED IN PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER THE POSSESSION O F THE PROPERTY WAS RECEIVED OR NOT AND COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION OF PROPERTY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION. 5. LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER ON A CONSIDE RATION OF THE ENTIRE MATERIAL BEFORE HIM OBSERVED THAT AT NO POI NT OF TIME THE ASSESSEE DECLARED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS SO A LSO SMT. JASPREET KAUR DID NOT DECLARE ANY SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS. HE FU RTHER OBSERVED THAT SMT. JASPREET KAUR WAS NOT CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS AS BUILDER UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS & PROFESSION AND HAD NO T SHOWN ANY INCOME UNDER SUCH A HEAD. LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE WHILE NOT BELIEVING THE PLEA TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AS TO THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD HELD THAT TH E VERY CONDITION REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT WAS NOT SATIS FIED INASMUCH AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT INVEST THE MONEY BEFORE 29/4/2013 OR 29/4/2014 WHEREBY THE TIME FOR PURCHASE OF HOUSE OF TWO YEARS OR CONSTRUCTION OF A HOUSE WITHIN THREE YEARS EXPIRED. AS A CONSEQUENCE THEREOF LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER BROUGHT THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAI NS TO TAX. 6. AGGRIEVED BY SUCH AN ACTION OF THE LEARNED ASSES SING OFFICER ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL. LD. CIT(A) ON A REAPP RAISAL OF THE MATERIAL BEFORE HIM CONSIDERED THE PLEA TAKEN BY THE ASSESS EE AND ALSO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND REACHED A CONCLUSION THAT THE PLEA TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE AND IS ON LY AN AFTERTHOUGHT. ACCORDING TO THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IF REALLY THE A SSESSEE INVESTED THE 4 CAPITAL GAINS ARISING OUT OF THE SALE OF ORIGINAL A SSET WITHIN STIPULATED PERIOD NOTHING PREVENTED HER FROM DECLARING THE SA ME. SO ALSO ACCORDING TO THEM SMT. JASPREET KAUR ALSO WOULD HAVE DECLARED THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN RESPECT OF SUCH SALE. FURTHER THE ALLEGED AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED 31.3.2012 IS AN UNREGISTERED ONE AND COU LD BE BROUGHT INTO EXISTENCE TO SUIT THE CONVENIENCE OF THE PARTIES. F OR WANT OF EVIDENCE AUTHORITIES BELOW DID NOT BELIEVE THE VERSION OF TH E ASSESSEE THAT THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING OUT OF THE SALE OF ORIGINAL A SSET WERE INVESTED WELL WITHIN TIME IN PURCHASE OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY AND T HEREBY THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM EXEMPTIONS UNDER SECTION 54F O F THE ACT. 7. AGGRIEVED BY THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ASS ESSEE PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE US STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURC HASED THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF SALE AND THEREFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE WRONG IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.1 15 73 665/- AND SUSTAINING THE SAME. IT IS THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. AR THAT WHEN THE INVESTMENT WAS COMPLETE WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME IT IS IMMATERIAL IF THE POSSESSION IS TAKEN AT A LATER POINT OF TIME. H E PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. BS SHANTHAKUMARI (2015) 60 TAXMAN.COM 74 (KARNATAKA ) FOR THE PRINCIPLE THAT WHEN IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THERE WAS INVESTME NT OF THE ENTIRE NET CONSIDERATION IN CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL HOUS E WITHIN STIPULATED PERIOD IT WOULD MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 54 F OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO GET BENEFIT OF SECTIO N 54F OF THE ACT. 8. PER CONTRA IT IS THE SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF TH E REVENUE THAT IN THIS CASE THE PLEA OF ASSESSEE TO HAVE PURCHASED TH E RESIDENTIAL HOUSE FROM SMT. JASPREET KAUR IS ONLY AN AFTERTHOUGHT BEC AUSE IF IT WERE TRUE 5 BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND SMT. JASPREET KAUR WOULD HAVE DECLARED THE TRANSACTIONS AT LEAST THE MATERIALISATION OF THE SA LE OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER EXCEPT THE SELF-SER VING UNREGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 30.3.2012 THERE IS NO MATERIAL WHATSOEV ER TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER WHEN THE SALE CONSI DERATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET BY WAY OF CHEQUE THERE IS NO REASON AS TO WHY THE PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF THE NEW ASSET WAS RECEIVED BY WAY OF A CHEQUE. SHE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NOTHING PREVENTED THE ASSESSEE FROM GETTING THE SALE DEED R EGISTERED AT THE EARLIEST POINT OF TIME IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET STOOD INVESTED IN THE PURCHASE OF THE NEW ASSET. SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORI TIES BELOW ARE WELL REASONED ONES AND DO NOT INVITE INTERFERENCE. 9. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON EITHER SIDE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT AS IS EVIDENCED BY THE AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED 03.01.1996 THE ASSESSEE PU RCHASED THE ORIGINAL PROPERTY FROM ONE JASWINDERPAL SINGH FOR A CONSIDER ATION OF RS.2.6 LACS AND SOLD THE SAME TO ONE SMT. JASPREET KAUR UNDER S ALE DEED DATED 29.04.2011.IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT BY SALE D EED DATED 9.7.2015 TITLE TO THE PROPERTY IN THE ENTIRE UPPER GROUND FLOOR WI THOUT THERE IS/PROOF RIGHTS OF A FREEHOLD BUILT UP PROPERTY BEARING NO. 358 AREA MEASURING 282 SQUARE METERS IN BLOCK- H SITUATED IN THE LAYO UT PLAN OF VIKAS PURI RESIDENTIAL SCHEME ALONG WITH 1/4 TH PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF STILT PARKING ETC. 10. ENTIRE DISPUTE IN THIS MATTER REVOLVES AROUND T HE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY ON 6 30.3.2012 ITSELF BUT SINCE THE FINISHING WORK OF TH E PROPERTY WAS NOT COMPLETE BY THE TIME POSSESSION THEREOF WAS TAKEN SUBSEQUENTLY AND A FORMAL SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 9/7/2015. REVENUE DID NOT BELIEVE THIS CONTENTION ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR SEVERAL REA SONS RECORDED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 11. IT COULD BE SEEN FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER LD. C IT(A) RECORDED THAT INASMUCH AS THE SALE DEED DATED 29.4.2011 CLEARLY S HOWS THAT ON THE SALE OF THE RESIDENTIAL PLOT THE ASSESSEE REALISED A SU M OF RS.1.23 CRORES AND ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH SALE SHE REALISES THE CAPITAL GA IN. HOWEVER SUCH CAPITAL GAIN IS NOT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE BY FIL ING THE RETURN OF INCOME. 12. ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY OF UPPER GROUND FLOOR UNDER THE AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED 30.3.2012 A ND FOR THAT MATTER THE SALE DEED DATED 9.7.2015 ALSO CONTAINS A RECITA L TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ENTIRE CONSIDERATION AMOUNT OF RS. 1.23 CRORES WAS ALREADY RECEIVED BY THE VENDORS WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID ON 30.3.201 2 BY TRANSFER OF BOOK ENTRY. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CLAIM THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54/54F OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF THIS INVEST MENT IN THE HOUSE PROPERTY BY FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. WHEN THE A SSESSEE PARTED WITH THE WHOLE AMOUNT OF RS.1.23 CRORES BY WAY OF INVEST MENT INTO THE HOUSE PROPERTY NOTHING PREVENTED HER FROM DECLARING THE SAME IN HER RETURN OF INCOME. 13. WHEN A SUM OF RS.1.23 CRORES WAS PAID BY WAY OF AGREEMENT OF PURCHASE NOTHING PREVENTED THE PARTIES FROM GETTIN G SUCH AN INSTRUMENT REGISTERED SO AS TO ESTABLISH THAT AS A MATTER OF FACT ON A PARTICULAR DATE 7 THERE TOOK PLACE SOME INVESTMENT WHICH ENTITLES THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. 14. IT IS ONLY WHEN THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUT INY AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE REGAR DING THE SALE OF PLOT THE ASSESSEE CAME FORWARD WITH THE EXPLANATION THAT SHE HAD PURCHASED THE UPPER GROUND FLOOR FROM MRS JASPREET KAUR TO WH OM SHE HAD SOLD THE PLOT FOR THE VERY SAME PRICE. 15. IT COULD ALSO BE SEEN THAT WHEN THE ASSESSING O FFICER VERIFIED THE INCOME TAX RETURN OF MRS. JASPREET KAUR WHO HAS BE EN ASSESSED TO TAX VIDE PAN AANPM9447K HE FOUND THAT SHE FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME OF RS.6 85 570/-IN FORM ITR 2 AND THE EXAMINATION OF THE SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL GAINS REVEALED THAT SHE HAS NOT DECLARED INCOME UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS EITHER LONG-TERM OR SHORT-TERM. IT IS THE OBSERVATION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER THAT S INCE MRS. JASPREET KAUR PURCHASED THE PLOT IN THE MONTH OF APRIL 2011 AND SOLD THE GROUND FLOOR IN MARCH 2012 THERE WILL BE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GA INS IN HER HANDS. SO ALSO IF AT ALL MRS JASPREET KAUR IS CARRYING ON ANY BUSINESS AS A BUILDER AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN INCO ME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION BUT NO SUCH S ORT OF INCOME WAS DECLARED BY MRS JASPREET KAUR. 16. FOR THESE REASONS THE AUTHORITIES BELOW REACHE D A CONCLUSION THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SHE HAD INVESTE D THE WHOLE SALE CONSIDERATION FOR PURCHASE OF HOUSE WAS NOT AN ACCE PTABLE ONE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THERE IS NOTHING CONTAINED IN SECT ION 54 OR 54F OF THE ACT 8 THAT IF THE ASSESSEE I.E. INDIVIDUAL OF HINDU UNDI VIDED FAMILY INVESTED THE WHOLE SALE CONSIDERATION FOR PURCHASE OF HOUSE. 17. BEFORE US ALSO THE LD. AR HAD PRESSED THE POIN T THAT IT IS A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE INVESTED THE ENTIRE CONSIDERATIO N AMOUNT RECEIVED IN RESPECT OF THE SALE OF ORIGINAL PROPERTY IN THE NE W PROPERTY WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME IN TERMS OF SECTION 54F OF THE ACT BUT INASMUCH AS THE CONSTRUCTION WAS NOT COMPLETE WITHIN 3 YEARS FORME R POSSESSION THEREOF WAS TAKEN SUBSEQUENTLY AND SALE DEED DATED 9.7.2015 WAS EXECUTED AT THAT POINT OF TIME AND THEREFORE THERE IS SUBSTAN TIAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 54F OF THE ACT AND SHE I S ENTITLED TO GET BENEFIT OF SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. RELIANCE FOR THI S PURPOSE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. BS SHANTAKUMARI (2015) 60 TAXMAN.COM 74 (KARNA TAKA). 18. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS NARRATED ABOVE THE DISPUT E IN THIS MATTER NOT TAKING POSSESSION OF THE LAND BEYOND 3 YEARS AS STI PULATED IN SECTION 54F OF THE ACT PROVIDED THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AND/O R INVESTMENT OF THE AMOUNT WITHIN SUCH STIPULATED PERIOD IS PROVED. BUT THE DISPUTE RELATES TO THE QUESTION WHETHER REALLY THE ASSESSEE INVESTE D THE AMOUNT IN PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF THE P ERIOD PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. SALE DEED DATED 29.4. 2011 CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THAT THE ORIGINAL PROPERTY WAS SOLD FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.1.23 CRORES AND SUCH AN AMOUNT WAS PAID BY WAY O F CHEQUES DRAWN ON THE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK SHALIMAR BAGH DELHIAS LI STED IN THE SALE DEED. THIS CLEARLY DOES NOT SPELL OUT ANY INTENTION OF TH E VENDORS TO PURCHASE BACK ANY PORTION OF THE BUILDING THAT IS TO BE CONS TRUCTED ON SUCH PLOT. 9 19. THE SALE DEED DATED 9.7.2015 IS CLEARLY BEYOND THE PERIOD OF 3 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF SALE OF PROPERTY SINCE THE P ERIOD OF 3 YEARS EXPIRES BY 29.4.2014. EXCEPT THE SELF-SERVING STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WAS AN INTERVENING AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED 30 .3.2012 ABSOLUTELY THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH SUCH A TRANSACTIO N. IT IS STATED IN THE SALE DEED DATED 9.7.2015 THAT THE ENTIRE CONSIDERATION A MOUNT OF RS.1.23CRORES WAS RECEIVED BY THE VENDORS THEREUNDE R ON 30.3.2012 ITSELF. HOWEVER BY WAY OF AN INSERTION BY HAND IT IS STATED THAT BY TRANSFER OF BOOK ENTRY. WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT SORT OF BOOK ENTRY THE PARTIES HAD MADE AND WHAT IS THE OCCASION THERE FOR . FURTHER THE SALE DEED DATED 9.7.2015 THE CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED ON 30.3.2012 WHEREAS THE AGREEMENT DATED 30.3.2012 DOES NOT READ THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED UNDER SUCH AN INSTRUMENT BUT IT WAS AL READY RECEIVED. RECITAL REGARDING THE BOOK ENTRIES IS CONSPICUOUSLY ABSENT IN THIS AGREEMENT TO SELL OR IN THE SALE DEED EXECUTED IN F AVOUR OF SMT. JASPREET KAUR. WHEN THE SALE DEED DATED 29.4.2011 IS SILENT ON THE ASPECT OF THE INTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES ABOUT THE FUTURE TRANSACT ION OF THE VENDOR UNDER THE SALE DEED DATED 29.4.2011 INTENDING TO PURCHASE ANY CONSTRUCTED PORTION OF THE BUILDING AT A FUTURE POINT OF TIME.I T ALSO REMAINS UNEXPLAINED WHY SUCH BOOK ENTRY WAS NOT RESORTED TO WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD TO SMT. JASPREET KAUR. 20. MOREOVER WHEN THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION WA S PAID TO THE VENDORS UNDER AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 30.3.2012 ON 30.3.2012 ITSELF OR ON AN EARLIER DATE NOTHING PREVENTED THE PARTIES F ROM OBTAINING A REGULAR SALE DEED ON THE DATE ITSELF RECITING THEREIN THAT THE POSITION WOULD BE TAKEN AS AND WHEN THE CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE. AGR EEMENT DATED 10 30.3.2012AND THE SALE DEED DATED 9.7.2015 DO NOT RU LE OUT THE POSSIBILITY OF THE PARTIES BRINGING SUCH DOCUMENTS INTO EXISTEN CE AS A RESULT OF AN AFTERTHOUGHT THE DOUBT RIGHTLY ENTERTAINED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 21. FURTHER THE DOUBT ENTERTAINED BY THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW IS WELL CORROBORATED BY THE CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES THEMSELV ES INASMUCH AS NEITHER THE SALE OF PLOT NOR THE PURCHASE OF FLAT I S DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE EITHER IN HER CAPITAL GAINS OR BY WAY OF C LAIMING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. SO ALSO THERE IS NO DENIAL OF THE FACT RECORDED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE EXAMINATION OF THE INCOME TAX RETURN FILED BY SMT. JASPREET KAUR ESTAB LISHED THAT SHE HAD NOT DECLARED ANY CAPITAL GAINS UNDER THE HEAD CAPI TAL GAINS EITHER LONG- TERM OR SHORT-TERM AND ALSO SHE HAS NOT SHOWN ANY INCOME DERIVED FROM THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION IF AT ALL IT HAS TO BE TAKEN THAT SMT. JASPREET KAUR CARRIED ON ANY BUSINESS AS A BUILDER AS CLAIME D BY THE ASSESSEE. THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SUPPORTED BY HER C ONDUCT.IN THIS SET OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO BEL IEVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 30.3.2012. IF THIS A GREEMENT IS TAKEN OUT OF CONSIDERATION THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUG GEST THAT AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO 9.7.2015 THE ASSESSEE INVESTED THE AMOUNT FOR PURCHASE OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OR THAT SHE HAD TAKEN POSSESSION THEREOF WITHIN THE TIME STIPULATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT UNDER LAW. 22. FOR THESE REASONS WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPI NION THAT IT IS UNSAFE TO PLACE RELIANCE ON THE AGREEMENT OF SALE D ATED 30.3.2012 TO HOLD THAT AS ON SUCH DATE THERE WAS A TRANSACTION O F PURCHASE OF THE ENTIRE GROUND FLOOR OF THE PROPERTY OR THAT ANY AM OUNT WAS PAID UNDER SUCH AN INSTRUMENT ON THAT DAY BUT ONLY BECAUSE TH E BASIC STRUCTURE OF 11 THE BUILDING WAS NOT COMPLETE AS ON THE DATE POSSE SSION WAS TAKEN SUBSEQUENT TO THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD OF 3 YEARS W HEN THE SALE DEED DATED 9.7.2015 WAS EXECUTED. WITH THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER WE DO NOT FIND ANYTHING ILLEGAL IN THE CONCLUSIONS REACHED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE THEREFORE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HOLD THAT THIS APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. WE ACCORDINGLY DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 23. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 18 TH NOVEMBER 2019. SD/- SD/- (G.S. PANNU) (K. NARASIMHA CHARY) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 18 TH NOVEMBER 2019. VJ COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI DRAFT DICTATED 1.11.2019 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 1.11.2019 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 20.11.2019 ORDER SIGNED AND PRONOUNCED ON 2 0 . 1 1 . 2 0 1 9 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 20.11.2019 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 12 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. DATE OF UPLOADING ON THE WEBSITE