9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (5) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee had sold certain immovable properties during the previous year relating to the assessment year in question but he had declared no capital gain on the sale of the said property. According to the assessee, no capital gains chargeable to tax had been earned by him on the sale of the said properties. The Assessing Officer by an assessment order dated September 6, 1984, made an addition of Rs. 3,33,735 on account of capital gain. The said addition was only with respect of one of the properties, namely, Shiv Nivas Palace. It is alleged that by an agreement to sell dated June 27, 1971, the assessee in his capacity as karta of the Hindu undivided family agreed to transfer certain properties to Lake Palace Hotels and Motels (Pvt.) Ltd. As per t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anuary 1, 1954, at Rs. 2,00,000. The assessee preferred an appeal which was rejected by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The assessee preferred further appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and reiterated the contentions raised before the Assessing Officer. In the opinion of the Tribunal, the memorandum of undertaking dated January 12, 1973, the lease deed dated December 14, 1978, and the cancellation deed dated October 9, 1984, and the certificate dated March 15, 1989, could not change the legal position that the property in question had stood transferred to Lake Palace Hotels and Motels Pvt. Ltd. Further, in the opinion of the Tribunal, the documents referred to are self-serving documents and as such they cannot be act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ale deed in respect of the upper portion was treated as ineffective and void. It was further submitted that the said memorandum of undertaking was not registered and, therefore, as per advice cancellation instrument was executed and registered in confirmation of memorandum of undertaking. It was specifically stipulated in the registered cancellation deed that the sale of the upper portion stands cancelled from the date of the execution of sale deed dated May 10, 1972, and consequently the sale deed was ineffective to that extent. It is submitted by Mr. Rajendra Mehta that the Tribunal has completely over looked the factual position with respect to the non-receipt of consideration regarding the upper portion and non-delivery of its possessio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has also placed reliance on the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Om Parkash v. CIT [1986] 159 ITR 973. Learned counsel has read the relevant findings of the Tribunal and asserted that the said findings are purely findings of fact. We have considered the rival contentions. The apex court in Oriental Investment Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 408 has held that if the point raised on a reference relates to the construction of a document of title or the interpretation of the relevant provisions of a statute it is a pure question of law. The apex court further observed that in dealing with it, the High Court may have regard to the view taken by the Tribunal, but its decision would not be accepted as final. The same view has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
