S.Sailakshmi, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1367/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4162 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHISH TRIPATHI IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: K RAVI
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Competent authority
• Section: 50C; 54

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , ! . '#'$ , % !& ' [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./I.T.A. NO.1367/MDS/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-2011. S. SAILAKSHMI, PALANI TOWERS, NO.65, VENKATNARAYANA ROAD, T. NAGAR, CHENNAI 600 017. VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, CHENNAI 600 034. [PAN AAOPS 9257P] ( () / APPELLANT) ( *+() /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. K. RAVI, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. ASHISH TRIPATHI, IRS, JCIT. /DATE OF HEARING : 20-06-2017 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29-06-2017 / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL IS AGGRIEVED ON AN ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THE HEAD LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND DENYING IT EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S. 54 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). ITA NO. 1367/MDS/2017 :- 2 -: 2. THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED WITH A DELAY OF TWENTY ONE DAYS. ASSESSEE HAS FILED A CONDONATION PETITION. REASONS SHOWN FOR THE DELAY SEEM TO BE JUSTIFIED. LD. DEPARTMENTAL RE PRESENTATIVE DID NOT RAISE ANY SERIOUS OBJECTION. DELAY IS CONDONED . APPEAL IS ADMITTED. 3. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE HAD FILED A RETUR N FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR DISCLOSING AN INCOME OF C 27,03,870/-. THROUGH A CONVEYANCE DEED EXECUTED ON 06.04.2009, ASSESSEE HAD SOLD A HOUSE PROPERTY AT NO.26, THANIKACHALAM ROAD, T. NAGAR, CHENNAI-17. ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S. 54 OF THE ACT ON THE GAINS ARISING OUT OF THE ABOVE SALE. LD. ASSES SING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE ALLOWED EXEM PTION U/S. 54 OF THE ACT, SINCE THE NEW HOUSE ON WHICH SUCH EXEMPTIO N WAS CLAIMED WAS ACQUIRED MORE THAN TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF SALE, AND SOUGHT EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE. REPLY OF THE ASSESS EE WAS THAT SHE HAD RECEIVED SUMS AGGREGATING TO C25,07,000/-, ON THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY DURING PREVIOUS YEARS ENDING 31.03.2000 A ND 31.03.2003 AND POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY WAS HANDED OVER TO T HE BUYER IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-2007. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESS EE, SALE PRICE WAS FULLY RECEIVED IN ADVANCE IN EARLIER YEARS AND POS SESSION WAS ALSO HANDED OVER IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07. THUS ACCORD ING TO HER LONG ITA NO. 1367/MDS/2017 :- 3 -: TERM CAPITAL GAINS COULD BE CONSIDERED ONLY FOR AS SESSMENT YEAR 2007- 2008. FURTHER, AS PER THE ASSESSEE THE GUIDELINE V ALUE OF C77,00,000/- COULD NOT BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATI ON RECEIVED BY HER SINCE THE TRANSFER STOOD COMPLETE IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07. 4. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS HOWEVER NOT IMPRESSED BY THE ABOVE REPLY. ACCORDING TO HIM, IN THE SALE DEED DA TED 06.04.2009, IT WAS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT VACANT POSSESSION OF T HE PROPERTY WAS HANDED OVER TO THE PURCHASER ONLY ON THAT DAY. A CCORDING TO HIM, REGISTRATION OF THE SALE DEED AS WELL AS HANDING OV ER OF THE PROPERTY HAPPENED ONLY IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-2010. LD. ASS ESSING OFFICER ALSO HELD THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION C LAIMED U/S. 54 OF THE ACT SINCE THE INVESTMENT IN NEW RESIDENTIAL H OUSE WAS DONE MORE THAN TWO YEARS BACK. HE SUBSTITUTED THE SALE CON SIDERATION MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED WITH THE VALUE FIXED FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY. AN ADDITION O F C77,00,000/- WAS MADE UNDER THE HEAD LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. 5. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT TRANSFER IN TERMS OF SEC. 2(47) (V) OF TH E ACT WAS COMPLETED IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-2007. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, SHE HAD CONSTRUCTED A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN NEELANKARAI WITH THE PROCEE DS OF THE SALE, WHICH ITA NO. 1367/MDS/2017 :- 4 -: WAS RECEIVED IN FINANCIAL YEARS ENDED 31.03.2000 A ND 31.03.2003. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO HER, SHE WAS ENTITLED FOR E XEMPTION U/S. 54 OF THE ACT. ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT DELIVER Y OF VACANT POSSESSION MENTIONED IN THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT ON LY CONFIRMED THE LEGALITY OF THE POSSESSION WITH THE BUYER. SPECIF IC CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS) WERE AS UNDER:- 2.SHE HAD OPTED TO SELL THIS FLAT TO HER FAMILY F RIENDS BY NAME SHRI K SRIDHAR REDDY AND SRI K. NARAHAI REDDY, CONSTITUTING THEIR HUF AND LOCATED IN NELLORE. THE PARTIES AGREED TO THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.25,OO,OOO/- AND THE APPELLANT RECEIVED IT IN ADVANCE, AS UNDER. YEAR ENDED FROM BUYER 31.03.2009 ACCOUNT 20,07,000/- 31.03.2009 HUF 5,00,000/- ---------------- 25,07,000 ----------------- 3. THE BUYER, MR. SRIDHAR REDDY, FELL SICK AND WAS IN A SERIOUS CONDITION FOR A LONG TIME. THEREFORE, THE SALE COULD NOT TAKE PLACE EVEN THOUGH IT WAS AGREED BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND THE PURCHASER AS EARLIER IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1 999-2000 WHEN THE ADVANCE WAS RECEIVED. AFTER PROLONGED ILLNESS, HE PASSED AWAY ON 30.05.2005 (FIN. YEAR 2005-06), LEAVING BEHIND HIS WIFE AND CHILDREN. SINCE SRI K. SRIDHAR REDDY PASSED AWAY, MR. K. NARAHARI REDDY TOOK OVER :THE POSSESSION OF THE FLAT IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 AND REQUESTED THE APPELLANT TO TAKE CARE OF ITS MAINTENANCE, SINCE HE WAS LOCATED IN ANDHRA PRADESH. THE COPY OF HIS LETTER DT.28.1.1.2006 IS ENCLOSED (PAGE :10). ITA NO. 1367/MDS/2017 :- 5 -: 4. THEY DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH EVEN TO REGISTER THE PROPERTY AS THE FAMILY HAD TO SPEND ON MEDICAL TREATMENT OF MR. K. SRIDHAR REDDY. THEREFORE, IT TOOK A LONG TIME FOR THE BUYER'S FAMILY TO ARRANGE FOR REGISTRATION. AS THEY CLOSELY KNOWN TO THE APPELLAN T AND THE AGREEMENT WAS ALREADY REACHED IN THE FIN. YEAR 1999-2000, FOR THE SALE PRICE AT RS.25 LAKHS, THEY DID NOT WANT TO GO BACK ON THEIR AGREEMENT AND THE SALE DEED WAS REGISTERED ON 6.4.2009, RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 IN THE NAME OF DECEASED M R. K. SRIDHAR REDDYS DAUGHTER, MS. K. KEERTHI ON THE CON SIDERATION OF 25 LAKHS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT. ASSESSEE ALSO FILED A AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI. K. NARAHAR I REDDY IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE AVERMENTS. ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY IT FOR CONSTRUCTING NEELANKARI PROPERTY FOR WHICH CLAIM U/S. 54 OF THE ACT WAS PREFERRED, INCLUDED THE FOLLOWIN G AMOUNTS:- YEAR ENDED C 31.03.2002 LAND COST 28,58,680 31.03.2002 CONSTRUCTION EXPENSES 3,00,000 --------------- 31,58,680 31.03.2003 CONSTRUCTION EXPENSES 29,93,077 31.03.2004 CONSTRUCTION EXPENSES 18,29,110 31.03.2007 CONSTRUCTION EXPENSES 1,67,344 TOTAL 81,48,211 THUS, AS PER ASSESSEE (I) THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD AT AN AGREED PRICE OF C25,07,000/-, (II) THE AGREEMENT WAS REACHED AS EAR LY AS PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 AND P OSSESSION HANDED ITA NO. 1367/MDS/2017 :- 6 -: OVER IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07. (III) THE ENTIRE SA LE PROCEEDS WERE INVESTED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT (IV) THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AROSE ONLY IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND (V) SUCH GAINS WERE EXEMPT U/S. 5 4 OF THE ACT. ASSESSEE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF DE LHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. MODIPAN LTD (ITA NO.2049/DEL/2009, DATED 9.11.2005). 6. HOWEVER, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) W AS NOT IMPRESSED BY THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS. ACCORDING TO HIM , DELIVERY OF POSSESSION, MENTIONED IN REGISTERED SALE DEED COULD NOT BE IGNORED AND THIS WAS RIGHTLY RELIED UPON BY THE LD. ASSESS ING OFFICER. FURTHER, AS PER LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SHR I. K. NARAHARI REDDY IN THE SWORN AFFIDAVIT HAD MENTIONED THAT A SSESSEE WAS CONTINUING TO TAKE CARE OF THE PROPERTY AND THIS B Y NECESSARY IMPLICATION MEANT THAT POSSESSION WAS WITH THE ASSE SSEE ONLY. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALSO NOTED THA T SALE GIVING RISE TO THE CAPITAL GAINS HAVING TAKEN PLACE ON 06.04.2 009, AND CONSTRUCTION OF PROPERTY AT NEELANKARAI ON WHICH DE DUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT WAS CLAIMED HAVING BEEN CARRI ED OUT BETWEEN 31.03.2003 TO 31.03.2007, THERE WAS A GAP OF MORE T HAN TWO YEARS, DISENTITLING THE ASSESSEE FROM MAKING SUCH A CLAIM. THUS, ACCORDING TO ITA NO. 1367/MDS/2017 :- 7 -: HIM, ASSESSEE WAS RIGHTLY DENIED DEDUCTION U/S. 54 OF THE ACT ALSO. HE THUS, UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFI CER. 7. NOW BEFORE US, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE STRO NGLY ASSAILING THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES SUBM ITTED THAT THE ENTIRE CONSIDERATION FOR SALE OF THE PROPERTY WAS RECEIVE D BY THE ASSESSEE BETWEEN 2000 TO 2003. ACCORDING TO HIM, BUYER SHRI . K. SRIDHAR REDDY HAD FALLEN SICK AND THIS WAS WHY THE REGISTRATION GOT DELAYED. CONTENTION OF THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE WAS THAT ASSESSEE HAD HANDED OVER POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY DURING FINA NCIAL YEAR ENDED 31.03.2007. THE TRANSFER, ACCORDING TO HIM WAS CO MPLETE IN THE SAID YEAR. THUS, ACCORDING TO HIM, ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBL E FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 54 OF THE ACT ALSO. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUD GMENT OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF D. KASTURI VS. CIT, 323 ITR 40 THAT OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DR. T.K. DAYALU, 60 DTR 403 AND THAT OF AMRITSAR BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. JANAK RAJ CHAUHAN, (2006) 102 TTJ 297 . 8. PER CONTRA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONG LY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITA NO. 1367/MDS/2017 :- 8 -: 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE REGISTERED D EED OF ABSOLUTE SALE ENTERED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH SMT. K. KEERTHI, SU RPLUS FROM WHICH HS BEEN SUBJECTED TO CAPITAL GAINS TAX ASSESSMENT, IS PLACED BEFORE US AS PAPER BOOK PAGES 20 TO 34. THE PREAMBLE OF THI S DEED IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- THIS DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE IS EXECUTED AT CHENNAI THIS THE 6 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2009 BY MRS. SAILAKSHMI, WIFE OF MR. C.S. SANJAY AND DAUGHT ER OF MR. K.P. SANKARAN, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, NOW RESI DING AT NO.5/18, BLUE BEACH ROAD, NELLANGARAI, CHENNAI 600 041, HEREIN AFTER CALLED THE VENDOR WHICH TERM WHEREVER THE CONTEXT SO REQUIRES OR PERMITS SHALL MEAN AND INCLU DE HERSELF, HER LEGAL HEIRS, LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, EXECUTORS, ADMINISTRATORS AND ASSIGNS OF THE ONE PART (IT PAN AAOPS 9257P) WHEREAS THE VENDOR HEREIN. REPRESENTS THAT SHE AS ORIGINALLY THE SOLE AND ABSOLUTE OWNER OF THE HOUSE. GROUND AND PREMISES. SITUATED AT PLOT NO.108, OLD NO.21. NEW NO.29 SUGNA VILAS', THANIKACHALAM ROAD; T.NAGAR CHENNAI -17 ,COMPNSED IN OLD T.S. 6406, AS PER PATTA T.S. NO.6405/2 OF BLOC K NO.139 OF THEYAGARAYANAGAR NAGAR VILLAGE, MAMBALAM GUINDY TALUK, CHENNAI DIST, MEASURING AN EXTENT OF 1 GROUND 1413 SQ.FT OR THEREABOUTS PURCHASED FROM MR. T. RAJENDRA BHAGAVAI AND OTHERS BY MEANS OF SALE DEED DATED 11.03.1981, REGI STERED AS DOCUMENT NO.676 OF 1981 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, T. NAGAR AND WHEREAS THE VENDOR HEREIN HAD DEMOLISHED THE EXISTI NG BUILDING THEREON AND CONSTRUCTED FOUR APARTMENT ON THE LAND AFTER DEMOLITION AS AFORESAID, AND .WHEREAS OUT OF FOUR APARTMENTS CONSTRUCTED BY' HER, THE VENDOR ALREADY SOLD THREE APARTMENTS TOGETHER WITH PROPORTIONATE UNDIVIDED SHARE. IN LAND, AFTER RETAINING - ONE APARTMENT BEARING NO.3 IN SECOND FLOOR, HAVING A SUPER BUILT UP AREA OF 1753 SQ.FT., (WHICH INCLUDES SHARE IN THE COMMON BUILT UPAREA) TOGETHER WITH ITS PROPO RTIONATE UNDIVIDED SHARE IN LAND IN EXTENT 1569.75 SQ.FT., OF THE ITA NO. 1367/MDS/2017 :- 9 -: RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS BUILDING; TOGETHER WITH ONE NUMBER EARMARKED COVERED CAR PARKING IN THE GROUND FLOOR A ND EXCLUSIVE PRIVATE OPEN TERRACE MEASURING AN EXTENT OF 1100 SQ.FT ATTACHED TO THE APARTMENT RETAINED BY HER AND WHEREAS THE VENDOR HEREIN HAS DECIDED TO SELL THE A FORESAID RETAINED APARTMENT NO.3 IN THE SECOND FLOOR HAVING A SUPER BUILD UP AREA OF 1753 SQ. FT OR THEREABOUT (WHICH I NCLUDES SHARE IN THE COMMON BUILT UP AREA) TOGETHER WITH IT S PROPORTIONATE UNDIVIDED SHARE IN LAND IN EXTENT 156 9.75 SQ.FT OF THE RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS BUILDING, TOGETHER WITH ONE NUMBER EARMARTKED CAR PARKING IN THE GROUND FLOOR AND EXCL USIVE PRIVATE OPEN TERRACE MEASURING AN EXTENT OF 1100 SQ .FT OR THEREABOUT, MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN THE SCHEDULE HE REUNDER AND WHEREAS VENDOR GOT THE PROPERTY ASSESSED TO PROPERT Y TAX BY THE CHENNAI CORPORATION AND THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN A SSIGNED WITH NEW NO.32/3, OLD NO.26/3, THANIKACHALAM ROAD, T. NAGAR, CHENNAI 600 017, AND THUS THE VENDOR HAS BEE N PAYING PROPERTY TAX, WATER CHARGES, AND SEWER TAX, ASSOCIATION, SUBSCRIPTION ETC, IN HER OWN RIGHT AND WHEREAS THE VENDOR HAS BEEN N ABSOLUTE POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF THE PROPERTY EVER SINCE SHE HAD TAKEN POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY AS AFORESAID AND THUS TH E VENDOR IS THE ABSOLUTE' OWNER OF THE PROPERTY MORE FULLY DESC RIBED IN THE. SCHEDULE HEREUNDER 'AND WHEREAS THE VENDOR HEREIN HAS OFFERED TO SELL THE S CHEDULE PROPERTY TO THE PURCHASER AND REPRESENTED TO THE PU RCHASER THAT SHE IS THE ABSOLUTE OWNER OF THE SCHEDULE PROP ERTY WITH POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF THE SAME AND THAT THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY IS FREE FROM ALL ENCUMBRANCES, MORTGAGES C HARGES, CLAIMS, DEMANDS, LIENS, MAINTENANCE, COURT PROCEEDI NGS, ATTACHMENTS, AWARDS, LITIGATION, ULC PROCEEDINGS AN D THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY IS NOT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF ANY SECURITY ETC., AND BELIEVING THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE VENDOR TO BE TRUE, THE PURCHASER HAS AGREED TO PURCHASE THE SCHE DULE PROPERTY FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF 25,00,000/- (RUPEES TWENTY FIVE LAKHS ONLY) WITHOUT ANY ENCUMBRANCES WHATSOEVER AND THE VENDOR HAS AGREED FOR THE SAME .. ITA NO. 1367/MDS/2017 :- 10 -: CLAUSE 10 OF THE SALE DEED IS ALSO VERY IMPORTAN T AND THIS IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- 10. THE VENDOR HAS THIS DAY DELIVERED VACANT POSSE SSION OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY TO THE PURCHASER. THE VENDOR HAS ALSO HANDED OVER THE XEROX COPIES OF THE TITLE DEEDS PER TAINING TO THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY TO THE PURCHASER . THE REGISTERED CONVEYANCE DEED CLEARLY SHOWS THAT ASSESSEE WAS THE SOLE AND ABSOLUTE OWNER OF THE HOUSE WHICH WAS SOLD ON 06.04.2009 AND SHE WAS UNTIL THAT DATE OF SALE IN ABSOLUTE POS SESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF THE PROPERTY. IN OTHER WORDS, SHE HAD DELIVERED VACANT POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY ONLY ON 6 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2009. AS AGAINST THE ABOVE, PLEADING OF THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESEN TATIVE IS THAT CONSIDERATION WAS PAID AND POSSESSION HANDED OVER MUCH EARLIER. IN SUPPORT, ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN AFFIDAVIT FROM ONE SHRI. K. NARAHARI REDDY. IN THE FIRST PLACE, WHAT WE FIND IS THAT TH E PURCHASER OF THE ABOVE PROPERTY WAS NOT SHRI. K. NARAHARI REDDY. EVE N OTHERWISE AN ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO LEAD EVIDENCE IN TH E NATURE OF AN AFFIDAVIT, WHICH GO AGAINST THE CLAUSES OF A REGIST ERED CONVEYANCE DEED. THAT APART, ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY A GREEMENT FOR SALE THAT SHE WOULD HAVE ENTERED INTO IF HER VERSION TH AT SHE HAD RECEIVED CONSIDERATION OF C25,00,000/- MUCH EARLIER, WAS C ORRECT. SO WE CANNOT FAULT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS CONSIDERING THE DATE OF TRANSFER AS PER THE REGISTE RED SALE DEED. LD. ITA NO. 1367/MDS/2017 :- 11 -: ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ALSO WELL WITHIN HIS RIGHTS TO APPLY SEC. 50C OF THE ACT, SINCE VALUE FIXED BY THE STAMP AUTHORITIES FOR THE PROPERTY WAS C77,00,000/-. 10. AS FOR THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF D. KASTURI (SUPRA) AND KARNATAKA HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF DR. T.K. DAYULU (SUPRA) AND THE DECISION OF ANOTHER BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF JANK RAJ CHAUHAN (SUPRA) RE LIED ON BY THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, IN ALL THESE CASES, THER E WERE WRITTEN AGREEMENTS FOR SALE WHICH WAS ACTED UPON BY THE CO NCERNED PARTIES. AS AGAINST THIS ADMITTEDLY, THERE WAS NO WRITTEN A GREEMENT FOR SALE BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND THE BUYERS. 11. COMING TO THE CLAIM U/S. 54 OF THE ACT, ADMITTEDLY CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE AT NEELANKARI WAS COMPLE TED ON 31.03.2007 WHICH WAS MORE THAN TWO YEARS BEFORE THE DATE OF T RANSFER. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT LOWER AU THORITIES WERE JUSTIFIED IN COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS IN THE IMPUGNE D ASSESSMENT YEAR APPLYING SEC. 50C OF THE ACT AND DENYING THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S. 54 OF THE ACT. WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERF ERE WITH THE ORDERS ITA NO. 1367/MDS/2017 :- 12 -: OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF J UNE, 2017, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ' ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ! . '#'$ ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER #$ / CHENNAI %& / DATED:29TH JUNE, 2017 KV &' ()*) / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. +,' / CIT(A) 5. )-. / / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. + / CIT 6. .01 / GF