Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 1445 - ITAT MUMBAIAddition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) - Income from other sources - Government value for stamp duty purpose of the immovable property was more than the actual value as per the deed - HELD THAT:- Sale agreement is different from sale-deed. Sale agreement contains agreed upon terms and conditions between seller and buyer for the sale of property. It also specifies the date by which the transaction will be completed. Sale agreement is a road-map how property transaction will be completed. On the other hand, sale deed is executed at the time of actual transfer of property i.e. transfer of ownership from the seller to the buyer. In the written submission filed before the Ld. CIT(A), the Authorised Representative(AR) of the assessee, referring to the decision in Gurbax Singh v. Kartar Singh & Ors [2002 (2) TMI 102 - SUPREME COURT]; Govt. of Karnataka v. Ragini Narayan [2016 (9) TMI 1275 - SUPREME COURT] ; Ved Nath v. Indra Vikram Alias Chhote Sing [2002 (9) TMI 885 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] , has explained that in view of the provisions of section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908, it is well settled that a document on subsequent registration will take effect from the date when it was executed and not from the time of its registration. We refer here to page 5 of the P/B. In fact, we follow the above ratio in subsequent paras. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the “Agreement for Sale” is dated 10.09.2014. The “Letter of Allotment” dated 27.04.2012 can not be considered as the date of execution of agreement by any stretch of imagination. Immovable property is not conveyed by delivery of possession, but by a duly registered deed. Further, it is the date of execution of registered document, not the date of delivery of possession or the date of registration of document which is relevant. In the case of Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT [1965 (3) TMI 21 - SUPREME COURT] , CIT v. Podar Cements Pvt. Ltd. [1997 (5) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] it is held that once the executed documents are registered, the transfer will take place on the date of execution of documents and not on the date of registration of documents. Section 56(2)(viii)(b)(ii) clearly stipulates that where any immoveable property is received for a consideration which is less than the stamp duty value of the property by an amount exceeding ₹ 50000/-, the stamp duty value of such property as exceeds such consideration , shall be chargeable to tax in the hands of the individual or HUF as income from other sources. It is applicable from A.Y. 2014-15. In National Cement Mines Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1961 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] speaking for the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized the principles of interpretation to be adopted by the Court in construing a commercial transaction - "the true nature and character of the transaction have to be ascertained from the covenants of the contract in the light of the surrounding circumstances." In view of the above factual matrix and position of law, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A). - Decided against assessee
|