Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 285 - AT - Income TaxLong term capital gain addition - valid transfer u/s.2(47)(v) - As argued transfer of the relevant capital asset by way of sale deed dt.20-04-2009 in issue was indeed a sham one in light of the alleged Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dt.20-04-2009 and re-conveyance deed dt.18-05-2009; respectively - HELD THAT:- We find no reason to express our concurrence with this taxpayer’s stand. This is for the reason that he has already executed the impugned registered sale deed; treated as a valid transfer u/s.2(47)(v) of the Act which is deemed to have superseded all the oral as well as un-registered documents between the vendor and the vendee; as the case may be. And also that whatever are the documents sought to be filed by way of additional evidence, the same only contain pleadings before the respective civil and criminal courts (supra) which are yet to attain finality. We are unable to treat the assessee or his family members’ pleadings or evidence therein as forming the sole basis so afar as assessment of his impugned capital gains is concerned. We wish to refer to hon'ble apex court’s decision in CIT Vs. Balbir Singh Maini [2017 (10) TMI 323 - SUPREME COURT] rejecting the department’s pela seeking to invoke a transfer in absence of registered document, thereby squarely covering the issue so far as the facts herein are involved as this assessee had not only appeared before the registration authority claiming therein that he had indeed transferred peaceful and vacant possession of the relevant capital asset but also received the entire corresponding sale consideration. Any prior or subsequent document therein to, oral as well as an unregistered one ought to be taken as superseded by the foregoing registered transfer document in issue. We therefore quote hon'ble apex court’s yet another decision CIT Vs. K.Y. Pilliah [1966 (10) TMI 35 - SUPREME COURT] to express our concurrence with the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion under challenge. The assessee’s strong endeavour to rely on the foregoing litigation (supra) as well as evidence deserves to be declined in light of his registered sale deed dt.20-04-2009. We accordingly uphold the impugned long term capital gain addition in assessee’s hands. All the assessee’s applications/petitions seeking to admit additional grounds and evidence shall be deemed to have been disposed-of in light of our foregoing detailed discussion.
|