Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 26 - AT - Income TaxCapital gain - unregistered agreement - transfer of capital asset u/s 2(47) - real owner - deemed owner - revenue claims that M/s Govind was not owner of land in view of decision of Balbir Singh Maini [2017 (10) TMI 323 - SUPREME COURT] because the agreement between assessee and M/s Govind was not registered - whether M/s Govind could be said to be owner of land on the basis of unregistered agreement with assessee? HELD THAT:- Dispute that the term “capital asset” is used in Income tax Act for taxation under “Income from Capital Gain” head and so the section 2(47) defining “transfer” is also relevant for that particular head; it is not at all relevant to ‘Income from Business” head. Therefore, in the present case, the CIT(A) has committed a serious error in placing reliance on section 2(47)(vi)/Explanation to section 2(47) and thereby hold M/s Govind as deemed owner. CIT(A) has diverted his mind to a wrong provision of law and diverted himself from the ratio decided in Balbir Singh Maini. In the present case, the controversy between parties is precisely for “Income from Business” head and that too whether or not M/s Govind can be said to be owner of land on the basis of unregistered agreement. In our considered view, the answer is a clear “No” as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in Balbir Singh Maini. Although we have confined to what has been wrongly adjudicated by CIT(A), we would like to add here that even for the purpose of Capital Gain head also, after decision of Hon’ble apex court in Balbir Singh Maini, there is no sale or transfer of immovable property by an unregistered agreement. It is true that M/s Govind has declared the income but a simple glance of the financial statements of assessee and M/s Govind makes it clear to any person of common sense that the audited P&L A/c of assessee shows a net profit of Rs. 37,02,451/- and the audited P&L A/c of M/s Govind shows a net profit of Rs. 1,16,82,835/- [on gross receipts of Rs. 23,85,10,980/- including the shared amount of Rs. 3,50,06,136/-]. That means, had there been no sharing of Rs. 3,50,06,136/-, M/s Govind would have suffered a substantial loss but for the sharing of consideration, the income figures of both parties i.e. assessee as well as M/s Govind are balanced. In these circumstances, there is a prima facie merit in the conclusion taken by AO and emphasised by Ld. DR. The above discussion brings us to conclude that M/s Govind cannot be treated as owner of the land on the basis of impugned unregistered agreement dated 26.02.2011 as per Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in Balbir Singh Maini. Therefore, we are inclined to uphold the order of AO and reverse the order of first-appeal. Ordered accordingly. The revenue’s appeal is allowed. Enhancement on account of interest income was an off-shoot of the acceptance of agreement by CIT(A) - While adjudicating Revenue’s appeal in earlier part of this order, we have not accepted the transfer of ownership on the basis of said agreement to M/s Govind. Therefore, the necessary outcome shall be that the addition of interest made by CIT(A) cannot sustain. Hence, we are inclined to delete the enhancement made by CIT(A). The assessee’s appeal is allowed.
|