NILOFER SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-24(2), NEW DELHI

3. Learned counsel submits during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities herein have erred in law and on facts in refusing her deduction claim of Rs. 50,00,000/- in computation of long term capital gains arising from transfer of corresponding capital assets, namely, three plots situated in DLF area at Gurgaon. We are taken to the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion affirming the assessment findings to this effect as under:

5.4. I have considered the facts at hand. This is a case where the appellant says that it had paid a sum of Rs. 50 lac to one Sh. Sukhbir Singh who had occupied the aforesaid 4 plots. The said amount of Rs. 50 lacs was claimed to have been paid in F.Y. 2009-10 and 2010-11. I find that the 4 plots in question were acquired by the appellant in around the period 1994-95. These plots are not joined together but are separate plots and not contiguous. Upon being required, the appellant produced before me copies of documents through which these 4 plots were acquired. The purchase documents (being sale agreements through which the appellant acquired these plots) clearly lay down that the seller has full and absolute control on the plots and has transferred the actual physical possession of the plots to the buyer who in this case is the appellant before me. To this effect, relevant portion of one of the purchase document (for plot 456/22 of DLF Qutab Enclave Complex) filed before me, being paras 3, 4 and 5, are produce below.

3. That the Vendor has assured the Vender that he is the sole exclusive and absolute owner of the said plot and no one else besides the Vendor has any right, claim, lien, interest on concern whatsoever on the above said plot and the Vendor has full and absolute authority to transfer/sell the same to the Vendor and has assured the Vendor that he has not entered into any Agreement to sell or any other commitment in respect of the said plot with any person and persons and has also undertaken that he will not enter into any other Agreement to sell or any other commitment or transaction with any other person(s) in respect of the said plot.

2.1 Learned counsel further invites our attention to the assessee’s additional ground that the corresponding three plots nos. U67/51; U56/22 & U14/12 had in fact been sold by their original allottees through general power of attorney and sale proceeds thereof. Learned counsel vehemently argues that the assessee’s impugned claim ought to have been accepted by both the lower authorities as the encroacher herein Sh. Sukhbir Singh had refused to vacate the premises, which made her to pay the amount in question of Rs.50 lakhs.