Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 1173 - AT - Income TaxRectification application u/s 254 - provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) are not applicable is founded on the argument that the immovable property is received without consideration - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, there is no dispute that the "Agreement for Sale" is dated 10.09.2014. We have held that the "Letter of Allotment" dated 27.04.2012 which has been produced at para 4 hereinabove cannot be considered as the date of execution of agreement by any stretch of imagination. In this context, we have relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT [1965 (3) TMI 21 - SUPREME COURT] , CIT v. Podar Cements Pvt. Ltd. [1997 (5) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it is held that once the executed documents are registered, transfer will take place on the date of execution of documents and not on the date of registration of documents. It is well-settled that 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 instant case, the "Agreement for Sale" is dated 10.09.2014. 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. Thus it is crystal clear that the aforesaid section is applicable to the instant case. In the written submission filed by the assessee before the CIT(A), it has been mentioned at page 3 that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) was introduced by the Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 01.04.2014 and hence, the amended provision is not applicable to the case of the assessee, since the appellant was entitled to the immovable property during the AY 2013-14. The same submission was reiterated during the course of hearing and hence, it cannot be said that it was never mentioned. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Cement Mines Industries Ltd. [1961 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] has been referred in the impugned order just to explain that 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. There is no mistake in referring to the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court because only a settled principle has been illustrated therein. The conclusion in the impugned order is based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Alapati Venkataramiah (supra) and Podar Cements (P.) Ltd. (supra). A perusal of the above facts clearly indicate that the applicant has not pointed out any mistake apparent from the record. A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. What the applicant wants is a review of the order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal is a creature of the statute. The Tribunal cannot review its own decision unless it is permitted to do so by the statute. - MA rejected.
|