SMT DALJIT KAUR SURI, Kota V. ACIT, Kota

ITA 443/JPR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5343 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 29-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEENA JEPH JCIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: B L BHOJWANI
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition; Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KN O] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YA DAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO.443/JP/13 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SMT. DALJEET KAUR SURI, SURI NIWAS, GUMANPURA, KOTA CUKE VS. THE ACIT CIRCLE - 1, KOTA LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AFFPS 0735 L VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI B.L. BHOJWANI (C.A.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SMT. NEENA JEPH (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 01/03/2016 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : /03/2016 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) KOTA DATED 26.02.2013 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLO WING GROUND OF APPEAL: THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE RE DUCTION OF RS. 8,49,978/- IN THE INDEXED COST BY THE LD. AO DUE TO ALLOWING OF BE NEFIT OF INDEXATION FROM A LATTER YEAR AND REDUCING THE ORIGINAL COST. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS SHOWN LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN FROM SALE OF HOUSE PROPERTY. AS PER T HE ASSESSEE, THE PLOT OF LAND WAS PURCHASED IN F.Y. 1997-98 AND THEN A HOUSE WAS CONS TRUCTED THEREON IN F.Y. 1998- 99. IN SUPPORT, THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED A COPY OF SAL ES AGREEMENT DATED 26.09.1998. AS PER AO, THE SAID SALE AGREEMENT WAS NEITHER REGISTERED NOR ITA NO. 443/JP/13 SMT. DALJEET KAUR SURI, KOTA VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-1. KO TA 2 NOTARIZED AND AS PER SUBSEQUENT REGISTERED DEED DAT ED 22.11.2001, THERE ARE CERTAIN INHERENT CONTRADICTIONS VIS--VIS THE SAKE AGREEMENT AND HE ACCORDINGLY TOOK THE DATE OF ACQUISITION OF THE REGISTERED DEED AS THE DATE OF ACQUISITION FOR THE ABOVE SAID PROPERTY AND CALCULATED THE INDEXED COST OF CONSTRUCTION THEREON. AS PER THE AO, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS N OT FOUND ACCEPTABLE ON ACCOUNT OF FOLLOWING REASONS: (A) ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT SHE PURCHASED PLOT IN 1998-99 BUT IN REGISTRATION DEED, IT WAS WRITTEN THAT A KOTHI IS CONSTRUCTED ON THAT PLO T WHICH IS NEAR 10 YEARS OLD FROM DATE OF REGISTRATION (I.E. 22.11.2001). THERE FORE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IS FALSE THAT SHE CONSTRUCTED KOTHI ON THE SAID PLOT AFTER P URCHASING IT BY THE ABOVE SAID AGREEMENT OF YEAR 1998. (B) IN SUPPORT OF CONSTRUCTION, ASSESSEE PRODUCED COPY OF BILLS OF CONSTRUCTION. HOWEVER, KOTHI WAS ALREADY CONSTRUCTED AS DISCUSSED ABOVE AND THEREFORE VALIDITY OF BILLS IS DOUBTFUL AND CANNOT BE ACCEPTE D IN ANY EVIDENCE. (C) THE REGISTERED SALE DEED TALKS ABOUT CONSTRUCTED KO THI AND THAT TOO CONSTRUCTED ABOUT 10 YEARS BACK. HOWEVER THE AGREE MENT ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE RELY TALKS ABOUT ONLY PLOT. THIS AGREEMEN T IS NEITHER REGISTERED NOR ATTESTED. THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSE E TO TAKE THIS AGREEMENT IN EVIDENCE COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED. (D) ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT CONSTRUCTION WAS MADE BY HER AFTER PURCHASE OF THE SAID PLOT BY AGREEMENT. BUT THE REGISTERED SALE DE ED PROVES IT IN THE CONTRARY. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT PLOT WAS PURCHASED BY HER BY THE AGREEMENT. THIS WAS ALSO PROVED IN THE CONTRARY BY THE SALE AGREEME NT AS THE SAID PROPERTY WAS NOT PLOT AT THAT TIME. THEREFORE, THIS EXERCIS E WAS DONE BY ASSESSEE FOR TAKING BENEFIT OF INDEXATION ONLY. (E) IN THE CASE OF M. SYAMALA RAO VS. CIT (1998) 234 IT R 140 (AP) THE SALE DEED ITSELF TALKS ABOUT THE AGREEMENT FOR SALES MADE BE TWEEN THE PARTIES. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE SALE DEED DID NOT MENTION ANY AGRE EMENT FOR SALES MADE BETWEEN THE PARTIES. THEREFORE, FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE. ITA NO. 443/JP/13 SMT. DALJEET KAUR SURI, KOTA VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-1. KO TA 3 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE CONSIDERING THE DATE OF SALE DEED AS DATE OF TRANSFER AND CAPITAL G AIN IS CALCULATED ACCORDINGLY. CONSEQUENTLY, THE EXPENSES OF CONSTRUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE MADE AFTER THE SAID AGREEMENT BUT BEFORE THE SALE DEED ARE NOT CONSIDERED. 2.1 THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS APPELLATE ORDER DATED 26. 02.2013 HAS GIVEN THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: I HAVE GONE THROUGH ASSESSING OFFICERS FINDING AN D ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS. IT WAS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE SAID AGREEMENT WAS NEITHE R REGISTERED NOR NOTARIZED AND WAS ALSO NOT ON ANY STAMP PAPER, SUCH AGREEMENT CAN BE PREPARED AT ANY TIME AND THEREFORE HAS NO SANCTITY. SECONDLY IN THE SALE DEED DATED 22.11.2001, IT WAS MENTIONED THAT ONE KOTHI NO. 881 WAS BEING SOLD & THIS KOTHI WAS 10 YEARS OLD. ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS. 24 LACS WAS STATED TO BE PAID IN ADVANCE. THE BILLS BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT SHOW CONSTRUCTION WORK. THESE WERE RELATED TO ELECTRIC CHIMNEY (RS. 6500/-) PURCHASE OF MARBLE (R S. 14570/-), CONSTRUCTION OF COMMON WALL (RS. 18000 + 21000) ETC. TOTALING TO RS . 1,52,305/-. THERE WERE FEW BILLS OF CEMENT, HOWEVER THE QUANTITY WAS INSIGNIFI CANT AND IT CAN BE CONCLUDED THAT NO CONSTRUCTION WORK WAS CARRIED OUT. THE ASSE SSEE CLAIMED THAT IT HAS PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN 10 LACS AND AS AT THE TIM E OF REGISTRATION IT WAS VALUE AT RS. 24 LACS BY REGISTRAR, THEREFORE IT CAN BE PRESU MED THAT RS. 14 LACS (RS. 24 LACS 10 LACS) WERE INVESTED IN CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE BY ASSESSEE. THE LOGIC IS ABSURD E.G. IF PRICE OF A PLOT INCREASES FROM RS. 10 LACS TO RS. 125 LACS THAN CAN THE VALUE OF CONSTRUCTION BE PRESUMED AT RS. 115 LACS, THE AN SWER IS SIMPLE NO. THE ASSESSEE COULD FURNISHED PROOF OF INVESTING ONLY RS . 1,52,305/-. IF WE TAKE ORIGINAL PRICE AT RS. 10 LACS AND COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT RS . 152305/- THAN THE RESULTANT CAPITAL GAIN WOULD INCREASE. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE , I AM OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALREADY ALLOWED MAXIMUM ALLOW ABLE AMOUNT AS COST OF PROPERTY. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS, THEREFORE, DIS MISSED. 2.2 THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURC HASED PLOT NO. 881, PHASE- VII, SECTOR 61, URBAN ESTATE, S.A.S. NAGAR, MOHALI DISTRICT ROPAR ON 26.09.1998. AN AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED WITH THE SELLER ON THE SA ID DATE AND POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY TAKEN. THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 10,00,000/- WAS ALSO PAID IN ITA NO. 443/JP/13 SMT. DALJEET KAUR SURI, KOTA VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-1. KO TA 4 FULL. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE CONSTRUCTED A KOTHI ON THE SAID PLOT. COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT IN SUPPORT OF THE PAYMENT AND COPIES O F VOUCHERS IN SUPPORT OF THE CONSTRUCTION WORK WERE FURNISHED TO THE LD. AO. T HE REGISTERED DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 22.11.2001. BENEFIT OF INDEXATION WAS CLAIMED ON THE BASIS OF YEAR WISE INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS IN ACCORD ANCE WITH LAW. THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COP Y OF BILLS IN SUPPORT OF THE CONSTRUCTION WORK. HOWEVER, THE LD. ASSESSING OFF ICER, RELYING ON THE RECITAL IN THE REGISTERED DEED, STRAIGHTAWAY BRUSHED ASIDE THE OVERWHELMING SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. THE SALE AGREEMENT CONTAINS THE DETAILS OF PAYMENT OF THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION TO THE SELLER. THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY MEANS OF ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT EVIDENCING THE PAYMENTS WAS FURNISHED TO THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DEFINITION OF TRANSFER IS AN INCLUSIVE DEFINITION. THE SIX CATEGORIES OF TRANSFER SPECIFI ED IN THE SECTION ARE BY WAY OF ILLUSTRATION OR ABUNDANT CAUTION AND NOT TO EXCLUDE OTHER CATEGORIES WHICH NATURALLY COME WITHIN THE EXPRESSION TRANSFER. TH E EXPRESSION MUST BE READ WIDELY AND NOT NARROWLY. IT DENOTES EXTENSION AND CANNOT BE TREATED AS RESTRICTED. A TRANSACTION WHEREUNDER THE RIGHT TO EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT STOOD TRANSFERRED ALBEIT SUBJECT TO RIGH T OR REVERSION IN FAVOUR OF THE TRANSFEROR, WOULD BE COVERED BY THIS SECTION BLUE BAY FISHERIES (P) LTD. VS. CIT (1987) 1656 ITR 1 (KER.) THE LD AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SECTION 2(47) OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT DEFINES TRANSFER EXTENDING BEYOND THE CONCEPT AS IS GENER ALLY UNDERSTOOD UNDER THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 OR IN COMMERCIAL PAR LANCE. THE DEFINITION IS NOT CONFINED MERELY TO SECTION 2(47), BECAUSE OF CONCEP T OF DEEMED TRANSFER IS SPREAD OVER AS UNDER SECTION 45(2), (3), (4), 46(2) AND 46A, SO THAT THESE MAY ALSO BE CONSTRUED AS CHARGING SECTIONS. IT SPECIFICALLY RECOGNIZES THE DOCTRINE OF PART PERFORMANCE UNDER SECTION 53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PR OPERTY ACT IN THE DEFINITION OF TRANSFER UNDER SECTION 2(47) ITSELF APART FROM ANY OTHER TRANSFER OF POSSESSION BY AN AGREEMENT OR ARRANGEMENT ENABLING ENJOYMENT OF A NY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. NORMALLY TRANSFER OF AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WORTH RS . 100 OR MORE IS NOT ITA NO. 443/JP/13 SMT. DALJEET KAUR SURI, KOTA VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-1. KO TA 5 COMPLETE WITHOUT EXECUTION AND REGISTRATION OF A CO NVEYANCE DEED. HOWEVER, SECTION 53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT ENVISAG ES SITUATIONS WHERE UNDER A CONTRACT FOR TRANSFER OF AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY, THE PURCHASER HAS PAID THE PRICE AND HAS TAKEN POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY, BUT THE C ONVEYANCE IS EITHER NOT EXECUTED OR IF EXECUTED IT IS NOT REGISTERED. IN S UCH CASES, THE TRANSFEROR IS DEBARRED FROM AGITATING HIS TITLE TO THE PROPERTY A GAINST THE PURCHASER. THE TRANSACTION IS FURTHER COVERED BY THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED IN 2(47)(VI), THAT IS ANY AGREEMENT OR ANY ARRANGEMENT OR IN ANY OTHER M ANNER WHATSOEVER, WHICH HAS THE EFFECT OF TRANSFERRING OR ENABLING THE ENJO YMENT OF ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. IT IS TRUE THAT AN APPARENT MUST BE CONSIDERED REAL UNTIL IT IS SHOWN THAT THERE ARE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THE APPARENT IS NOT THE REA L. A LITTLE PROBING WAS SUFFICIENT IN THE PRESENT CASE TO SHOW THAT THE APPARENT WAS N OT THE REAL. THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THE PROOF OF PAYMENT TO THE SELLER AS WEL L AS OF CONSTRUCTION COST. HOWEVER, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER BRUSHED ASIDE TH IS CLINCHING EVIDENCE. THE TAXING AUTHORITIES WERE NOT REQUIRED TO PUT THE BLI NKERS WHILE LOOKING AT THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BEFORE THEM. THEY WERE ENTITLED TO LOOK INTO THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES TO FIND OUT THE REALITY O F THE RECITALS MADE IN THESE DOCUMENTS CIT VS. DURGA PRASAD MORE (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) . IT IS NOT THE FORM, OR THE NAME OF THE TRANSACTION BUT THE SUBSTANCE AND THE TRUE NATURE AND CHARACTER OF THE TRANSACTION IS TO BE AS CERTAINED FROM THE ADMITTED FACTS AND SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES, THAT IS MATERI AL AND DECISIVE. ACCORDING TO CIT V. GOPAL SHARAN NARAIN SINGH (1934) 2 ITR 264 ( PAT), IT IS THE SUBSTANCE OF THE TRANSACTION AND NOT THE FORM WHICH IS IMPORTANT. W HETHER OR NOT AN ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO A PARTICULAR DEDUCTION OR IS LIABLE TO BE TAXED ON SOME RECEIPT WILL DEPEND THE PROVISIONS OF LAW RELATING THERETO AND N OT ON THE VIEW WHICH THE ASSESSEE OR THE ASSESSING OFFICER MIGHT TAKE NOR CA N THE EXISTENCE OR ABSENCE OF ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BE DECISIVE OR CONC LUSIVE IN THE MATTER. 2.3 THE LD DR IS HEARD WHO HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE R EGISTERED SALE DEED AGREEMENT WILL OVERRIDE ANY OTHER PRIOR SALE AGREEM ENT AND IN ANY CASE, THE SALE ITA NO. 443/JP/13 SMT. DALJEET KAUR SURI, KOTA VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-1. KO TA 6 AGREEMENT IS NOT RELIABLE AND GIVEN THE INHERENT CO NTRADICTIONS IN THE TWO DOCUMENTS, THE LATTER DOCUMENT WHICH IS REGISTERED WITH THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITIES WILL HAVE A CLEAR SAY IN THE MATTER AND THE DATE OF ACQUISITION AS PER REGISTERED SALE DEED HAS RIGHTLY BEEN TAKEN BY THE AO FOR WORKING OUT THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION. 2.3 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LIMITED ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS TO DETERMINE THE YEAR OF ACQUISITION OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY WHICH HAS BEEN SO LD DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, SHE HAD PURCHA SED THE PROPERTY VIDE SALE AGREEMENT DATED 26.9.98 WHEREIN SHE HAD PAID FULL C ONSIDERATION OF RS. 10 LACS VIDE TWO CHEQUES DATED 4.9.98 AND 26.9.98 DRAWN ON BANK OF PUNJAB PANCHKULA AND THE PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY WAS TAK EN AND THEREAFTER A KOTHI ON THE SAID PLOT OF LAND WAS CONSTRUCTED. IN THE RETU RN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TOTAL COST OF RS. 26,98,705/- TOWARDS COST OF LAND AND COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND RELATED EXPENSES. THE AO HAS ALLOWED RS. 25,4 6,400/- AND DISALLOWED RS. 1,52,305/- WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN CONTESTED BEFORE US. FURTHER, AS PER THE AO THERE ARE CERTAIN APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS IN TERMS OF SAL E AGREEMENT AND THE AGREEMENT WHICH HAS BEEN REGISTERED WITH THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITIES. ACCORDINGLY, HE HAS CONSIDERED THE DATE OF REGISTRA TION OF THE SALE DEED IE, 22.11.2001 AS THE DATE OF PURCHASE OF SAID PROPERTY AND THE BENEFIT OF INDEXATION HAS BEEN GRANTED ACCORDINGLY. THE SAID CONTRADICTI ONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN NOTED IN PARA NO.2 ABOVE. 2.4 THE LD. AR DRAWN OUR REFERENCE TO PROVISION OF SECTION 2(47) AND DOCTRINE OF PART PERFORMANCE U/S 53 A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPER TY ACT. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT SECTION 53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT EN VISAGES SITUATIONS WHERE UNDER A CONTRACT FOR TRANSFER OF AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY, T HE PURCHASER HAS PAID PRICE AND HAS TAKEN POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY BUT THE CO NVEYANCE IS EITHER NOT EXECUTED OR IF EXECUTED IS NOT REGISTERED. IN SUCH CASES, ANY AGREEMENT OR ANY ARRANGEMENT WHICH HAS THE EFFECT OF TRANSFERRING OR ENABLING THE ENJOYMENT OF ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS AN AG REEMENT BY VIRTUE OF WHICH THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY HAS BEEN ACQUIRED. ITA NO. 443/JP/13 SMT. DALJEET KAUR SURI, KOTA VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-1. KO TA 7 2.5 THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURC HASED PLOT NO. 881, PHASE- VII, SECTOR 61, URBAN ESTATE, S.A.S. NAGAR, MOHALI DISTRICT ROPAR ON 26.09.1998. AN AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED WITH THE SELLER ON THE SA ID DATE AND POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY WAS TAKEN ON THE SAID DATE AND THE PURCHAS E CONSIDERATION OF RS. 10,00,000/- WAS ALSO PAID IN FULL. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE CONSTRUCTED A KOTHI ON THE SAID PLOT. AS PER THE LD AR, THE DATE OF ACQUI SITION OF THE PROPERTY SHOULD THEREFORE BE TAKEN AS 26.09.1998 WHEN THE APPELLANT HAS MADE THE PAYMENT TOWARDS THE FULL PURCHASE CONSIDERATION AND HAS ALS O TAKEN POSSESSION OF THE SAID PROPERTY. 2.6 FROM THE PERUSAL OF RECORDS, IT IS NOTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS PAID SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 10 LACS VIDE TWO CHEQUES DATED 4.9.98 AND 26.9.98 DRAWN ON BANK OF PUNJAB PANCHKULA. REGARDING PHYSICAL POSSE SSION OF THE PLOT OF LAND, THE SALE AGREEMENT DATED 26.9.98 STATES THAT THE SELLER HAS DELIVERED THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE SAID PROPERTY TO THE ASS ESSEE ON THE DATE OF SALE AGREEMENT. AS THE SAME TIME, REGISTERED SALE DEED REGISTERED WITH SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE TALKS ABOUT KOTHI (CONSTRUCTED SOME 10 YEARS BACK) AND THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY GIVEN ON 22.11.2001, THE DATE OF REGIS TRATION OF THE SALE DEED. THIS IS PRECISELY THE INHERENT CONTRADICTION BETWEEN THE TWO DOCUMENTS PREPARED AND EXECUTED BETWEEN THE SELLER AND THE BUYER WHICH HAS BEEN HIGHLIGHTED IN THE AOS ORDER. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THOUGH THE PAYMEN T HAS BEEN MADE IN ADVANCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THROUGH DEMO NSTRABLE EVIDENCES AND APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION THAT SHE HAS TAKEN POSSES SION OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 26.09.1998. SECONDLY, IT IS ALSO UNCLEAR WHETHER THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION IS A BARREN PLOT OF LAND OR A L AND ALONG WITH CONSTRUCTED HOUSE THEREON. ACCORDINGLY, THE DOCTRINE OF PART P ERFORMANCE U/S 53 A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT CANNOT BE APPLIED IN THE I NSTANT CASE. FURTHER, WE AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE LD DR THAT GIVEN THE INH ERENT CONTRADICTIONS IN THE TWO DOCUMENTS, THE LATTER DOCUMENT WHICH IS REGISTERED WITH THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITIES WILL HAVE A CLEAR AND OVERRIDING SAY IN THE MATTER AND THE DATE OF ACQUISITION AS PER REGISTERED SALE DEED SHOULD BE T AKEN FOR WORKING OUT THE ITA NO. 443/JP/13 SMT. DALJEET KAUR SURI, KOTA VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-1. KO TA 8 INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION. IN LIGHT OF ABOVE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) AND IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. THE ASSESSEES SOLE GROUND IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18/03/2016. SD/- SD/- ( R.P. TOLANI) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 18 / 03 /2016 PILLAI VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- SMT. DALJEET KAUR SURI, KOTA 2. THE RESPONDENT- THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KOTA 3. THE CIT(A) , KOTA 4. THE CIT KOTA 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO 443 /JP/13) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR.