SANJAY DUTT,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण
िदʟी पीठ “डी”, िदʟी
ŵी िवकास अव̾थी, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं
ŵी एम. बालगणेश, लेखाकार सद˟ के समƗ
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “D”, DELHI
BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER&
SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आअसं.1857/िदʟी/2022(िन.व. 2018-19)
Sanjay Dutt,
BL Gupta & CO. 103 FF, Caxton House,
Khandewalan Extn., New Delhi 110055
PAN No: AEQPD-5870-F
...... अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant
बनाम Vs.
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
Circle 1(2)(2), New Delhi 110002
.....ᮧितवादी/Respondent
Assessee by : Ms. Manju Goel & Shri B.L Gupta, Chartered Accountants
Department by : Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT-DR
सुनवाई कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of hearing
:
01/10/2025
घोषणा कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement :
:
28/11/2025
आदेश/ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the Assessment Order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 24.06.2022, for Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Ms. Manju Goel, appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the short issue for consideration of the Tribunal in this case is; the year of taxation of capital gains.
2.1. Narrating facts of the case, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee is a non-resident. The assessee entered into Property Development
Agreement (PDA) with Sanskar Home P. Ltd. (Developer) on 14.06.2017 with respect
2
to property bearing no. C-9/3 Vasant Vihar, Delhi admeasuring 420 sq. yards. As per the said agreement, the assessee was to receive an amount of Rs.5.65 crores as consideration for transfer of rights in the immovable property. During the Financial
Year 2017-18, possession of the property was not handed over by the assessee to the developer for construction as the assessee immediately after signing the PDA left for the USA. Subsequently, when the assessee came back to India a Supplementary
Agreement was signed on 23.05.2018 by the assessee with the developer, whereby consideration was revised and reduced to Rs.5.15 crores. It is pertinent to mention here that neither the original PDA nor the Supplementary Agreement was registered.
Admittedly, the assessee received Rs.3.39 crores during FY 2017-18 and the balance amount of consideration was received by the assessee in FY 2018-19. The possession of the immovable property was given by the assessee to the developer in FY 2018-19
and project was completed in the same FY 2018-19. After the receipt of the entire consideration, the assessee offered capital gains to tax in his return of income for AY
2019-20. The ld. AR in order to substantiate her contentions furnished a copy of acknowledgment of assessee’s return of income for AY 2019-20 along with the computation. The ld. AR contended that since the Development Agreements were not registered, the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision in the case of CIT vs. Balbir Singh Maini, 398 ITR 531 (SC).
3. Per contra, Shri M.S Nethrapal representing the department vehemently defending the assessment order submitted that as per assessee’s own admission, the assessee has received consideration amounting to Rs.3.39 crores during FY 2017-18. The assessee ought to have offered the same to tax in his return of income for AY
2018-19. No such income was offered to tax by the assessee in the ITR. He thus, prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee.
3
4. Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The fact that the assessee is owner of immovable property C-9 Vasant Vihar, Delhi, admeasuring 420
sq. yards it is not in dispute. Further, the assessee had entered into PDA with developer and the total amount of consideration received for transferring the rights of immovable property is also undisputed. Admittedly, the assessee received part consideration of Rs.3.39 crores during FY 2017-18, the remaining amount was received by the assessee in the next Financial Year i.e. FY 2018-19. The only dispute is the year of taxation of the capital receipts. The assessee has offered entire capital gains to tax after receipt of the entire consideration and handing over of the possession of the immovable property. The Revenue intends to tax part consideration received by the assessee in FY 2017-18, i.e. during the AY 2018-19. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Balbir Singh Maini (supra) after referring to the amended provisions of section 53A of the Transfer of Property
Act and sections 17 & 49 of the Indian Registration Act held that, unless the document containing the contract to transfer for consideration of any immovable property is registered, it shall not have any effect in law. Thus, in the instant case since neither the PDA nor the Supplementary Agreement was registered, the transaction of transfer of rights vide aforesaid unregistered agreements could not be considered as transfer u/s.2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Since, provisions of section 2(47)(v) of the Act are not attracted on the facts of instant case, the question to tax capital gains in the impugned assessment year does not arise.
4
6. In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on Friday the 28th day of November,
2025. (M. BALAGANESH)
(VIKAS AWASTHY)
लेखाकार सद᭭य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
᭠याियक सद᭭य/JUDICIAL MEMBER
िदʟी/Delhi, ᳰदनांक/Dated 28/11/2025
NV/-
ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषतCopy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथᱮ/The Appellant ,
2. ᮧितवादी/ The Respondent.
3. The PCIT
4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., िदʟी/DR, ITAT, िदʟी
5. गाडᭅ फाइल/Guard file.
BY ORDER,
////
(Asstt.