Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 1479 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained capital gain - Addition based on “Saudha Chitthi” found during the course of search - ownership in the land mentioned in the ‘sauda chithi’ - HELD THAT:- These facts clearly prove that the ‘sauda chithi’ is a dumb document as far as the assessee is concerned. Hence, the additions cannot be made on the basis of such dumb documents. CIT(A) relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Common Cause (A Registered Society) & Others Vs. Union of India & Others [2017 (1) TMI 1164 - SUPREME COURT] And CBI Vs. V.C. Shiukla [1998 (3) TMI 675 - SUPREME COURT] As the additions has been made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of dumb documents, these additions deserves to be deleted. CIT(A) observed that land has not been transferred to any one by registering the sale deed and it is in the name of the assessee and other two coowners which is seen even from the report of DVO submitted on 29.12.2018. These facts prove that the transfer of the land under consideration has not taken place, as sale deed has not been registered and as per the binding judgment in the case of CIT vs. Ashaland Corporation [1981 (7) TMI 57 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] in which it has been held that the transfer of the immovable property take place on the date, sale deed is registered. The assessee’s case is further found covered by the judgment in the case Alapati Venkatararniah vs. CIT [1965 (3) TMI 21 - SUPREME COURT] in which it has been held that title to immovable assets could not pass till conveyance was executed and registered. The possession of the land is also with the assessee; hence it is not a case of part performance as covered by section 53A of Transfer of Property Act. In the assessee's case, there is no proof that the assessee has received any consideration on sale of this land. CIT(A) deleted the addition. We have gone through the findings of ld CIT(A) and noted that there is no infirmity in the order of ld CIT(A). That being so, we decline to interfere with the order of Id. CIT(A) in deleting the aforesaid additions. His order on these additions are, therefore, upheld and the grounds of appeal of the Revenue are dismissed.
|