TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 69X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the possession of the said land to Late Shri Jagdishnarian Agarwal. Original owners and confirmation parties also executed the Power of Attorney in favour of Late Shri Jagdishnarian Agarwal in which all rights were given to him. The property was exclusively under the ownership and possession of the Shri Jagdishnarian Agarwal, which was acquired by the appellant or other legal heir on demise of his father Shri Jagdish Narian Agarwal. The property was under litigation for a long time and the compensation was given for the settlement. The property was registered with the name of Shri Jagdishnarian Agarwal till the pending of the litigation, however, the same was came with the name of the appellant and other legal heirs by virtue of conveyan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not furnish any documentary evidence for providing that the said property was purchased by the assessee s father JN Agarwal in 1974 itself. ii) As per Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, the transfer will be completed only when full sale consideration received by the seller, property is registered in the name of purchaser and possession was given to the purchase. In the case of the assessee, the above said there conditions were not fulfilled in the year 1974 whereas the said conditions were fulfilled in the year 2014 2. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(Appeals) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the AO be restored 3. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or to submit addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esent appeal before us. ISSUES NO.1 and 2: 4. Under these issues, the assessee has challenged the allowance of the claim of ₹ 2,85,42,477/- u/s 56(2)(vii) of I.T.Act. The Ld. DR has argued that the CIT(A) wrongly allowed the claim of the assessee, therefore, finding of the CIT(A) is not justifiable, hence is liable to be set aside. However, on the other hand. The Ld. AR of the assesee has strongly relied upon order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) in question. Before going further, it is necessary to advert the finding of the Ld.CIT(A). Be in question. 4. I have carefully considered the facts of the case, the submissions of the Appellant and the views enumerated by the AO in his order and have arrived at the conclusion as under. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not towards purchase consideration. The purchase consideration had already been paid by father of the Appellant to Vendors and Original Owners and Confirming Parties. All the aforesaid facts were agreed by the Vendors and Original Owners and Confirming Parties in the Conveyance Deed. It is also a fact that the property was not registered in the name of late Shri. Jagdishnarain Agarwal due to pending litigation. The said registration could have been done vide a Conveyance Deed which was entered into by the Appellant being successor of late Shri. Jagdishnarain Agarwal in the FY 2014-15 after opting for out of court settlement with litigating parties. It is but natural that as (he Conveyance is made in FY 2014-15. the office of sub-registrar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ain Agarwal. Memorandum of Family Settlement. Deed of Confirmation between the Appellant and Vendors would be unfair, unjustified and without considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. After going through the order passed by the CIT(A), we noticed that the property was purchased by Jagdish Narian Agarwal in the year 1974 after paying the full consideration. The original owners/vendors confirmed the transaction and the parties had given requisite confirmation before the district collector. They transferred the possession of the said land to Late Shri Jagdishnarian Agarwal. Original owners and confirmation parties also executed the Power of Attorney in favour of Late Shri Jagdishnarian Agarwal in which all rig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
