TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 634
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee submitted the copy of the purchase deed of the said property, from which it transpired that the assessee had on 11.09.2002 had purchased from one, Shri Sujit Kumar Bindal, a piece of land measuring 5 kathas/0.8 decimal. I was further transpired that on 11.09.2002, the assessee's wife namely Smt. Manju Devi Rampuria also purchased a piece of land measuring 5 kathas/0.8 decimal from the said Sujit Kumar Bindal which was from part of the same piece of land. These lands were sold by the assessee and his wife jointly to Priyanka Promoters and Developers vide three separate sale deeds, the details of which are as under: Area of land Purchaser Sale consideration Market value 2 Kathas Priyanka Promoters and Developers 4,00,000/- 33,00,000/- 4 Kathas Priyanka Promoters and Developers 8,00,000/- 52,80,000/- 4 Kathas Priyanka Promoters and Developers 8,00,000/- 52,80,000/- Total 20,00,000/- 1,38,60,000/- The Assessing Officer noted that in the Income-Tax Return filed manually with the Department, the assessee had not shown any capital gains from the sale of above land. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain in this respect. The a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he provisions of sec. 50C. In view of the above I firstly request you to kind issue notice u/s. 131 Sri Sujit Kr. Bindal and examine him in my presence to find out the genuineness of the deed executed by him in my favour on 11th Sept 2002." Considering the above plea of the assessee, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s. 131 of the Act to the seller Shri Sujit Kr. Bindal who appeared before the Assessing Officer and submitted the documents from which it revealed that the said Sujit Kr. Bindal has filed a title suit with Civil Court against partners of M/s. Priyanka Promoters and Developers, to whom the assessee had sold the aforesaid property. 3. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee and his wife jointly sold the aforesaid land for an aggregate consideration of Rs. 20,00,000/-, whereas, the market value of the land, as determined by Stamp Valuation Authority, was at Rs. 1,38,60,000/-. He further noted that even the assessee had not disclosed the aforesaid sale transaction of land in the return of income. The Assessing Officer, therefore, noted that it was clear that the assessee had concealed the transaction of sale of land by not having disclosed the same in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was the subject matter of the conveyance deed and executed by him and the provisions of section 50C were not applicable. 2. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the A.O in applying the provisions of sec. 50C when there was no transfer of any immoveable property by the assessee. 3. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition made by the A.O under the head long term capital gain was unjustified and not in accordance with law." 6. Apart from the aforesaid grounds of appeal, the assessee vide letter dated 05.10.2019 has taken the following additional grounds of appeal: "4. For the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the A.O u/s. 50C when the deed was not executed during the year and it is the date of execution of the deed which is the date of transfer even if there was transfer." 7. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the records. 8. The ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset has invited our attention to page 28 of the paper-book, which is the copy of the endorsement of the registration of sale deed by the Sub-Registrar, the contents o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stered deeds would operate from the date of presentation of the same to the Sub - Registrar and not from the time of its registration. He has submitted that since the deeds fully executed were presented on 31.03.2013, therefore, in view of section 75 of the Indian Registration Act, these would be deemed to operate from 31.03.2013 i.e. in the financial year 2012-13 relevant to assessment year 2013-14. He, therefore, submitted that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the impugned addition in the assessment year 2014-15 while invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Income Tax Act. He has submitted that each assessment year is a separate assessment year and the additions, if any, could have been made by the Assessing Officer in assessment year 2013-14, itself, and not in the assessment year 2014-15. He, therefore, has submitted that the additions made by the Assessing Officer by invoking section 50C of the Income Tax Act, in the relevant assessment year 2014-15 were not legally sustainable. He, in this respect, has also relied upon the following case laws: (i) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ghaziabad Engineering Co. (P.) 249 ITR 244 (Delhi) (ii) Thakur Kishan Si....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... property, in question, were not registered, therefore these deeds did not affect any transfer of property as per section 49 of the Registration Act. She, therefore, has submitted that there was no transfer of the property in question in the eyes of law till 31.03.2013. She has further submitted that the transfer of the property was affected on 01.04.2013 when the deed was registered, therefore, the Assessing Officer has rightly invoked the provisions of section 50C for the assessment year under considering i.e. A.Y 2014-15. She has further submitted that there was no force in the contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the assessee did not have any saleable right in the property in question. She, in this respect, has submitted that the assessee had not mentioned that how a property which was already transferred by way of registered deed nine years prior, can be transferred again through a gift by the seller namely Mr. Sujit Kr. Bindal. She has further submitted that the assessee has not produced any evidence of carrying out any prosecution or complaint, litigation etc. by the assessee against Shri Sujit Kr. Bindal relating to the aforesaid charge of fraud by the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt of Allahabad, i/c of Smt. Shobha Jain Vs CIT Agra, (2016: 75 taxmann.com 223) dt. 08.09.2016 3. High Court of Punjab and Haryana i/c of Smt. Shail Moti vs CIT Chandigarh (2013, 35 taxmann.com 46) dt. 29.01.2013 4. ITAT Pune i/c Smt. Jayshree Shankar Done (2020, 122 taxmann.com 120).dt 19.12.2020" 10. We have considered the rival contentions and gone through the record. We are of the opinion that in this case, the appellant-assessee is not entitled to the discretion of this Court for admission of the additional ground. The assessee, in this respect, has not come to the Court with clean-hands. It has been held time and again by the various courts of the country that one cannot be allowed to take advantage of one's own wrong. The case of the assessee is that the conveyance deed was presented to the Sub-Registrar on 31st March 2013. However, the deed was registered on 1st April 2013. The counsel for the assessee relying upon the provisions of section 47 and section 75 of the Registration Act 1908 has contended that though the deed was registered on 1st April 2014 i.e. in the previous year relevant to assessment year 2014-15, however, it would relate back to the date of e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ansfer the same chunk of property by way of three separate sale deeds dividing the consideration into three smaller parts with the motive that the same should not be taken note of by the Income Tax Authorities. Further, another fact on the file showing that the assessee's intention was not bona fide is that the assessee neither disclosed the aforesaid transfer of capital asset in the Income Tax Return for assessment year 2013-14 nor in the Income Tax Return for assessment year 2014-15. The assessee concealed this fact of transfer of property from the Income Tax Authorities deliberately fully knowing that the factum of execution of the deed in financial year 2012-13 relevant to assessment year 2013-14 would not come into the knowledge of the Assessing Officer, as the execution of the said deed would not come into the public domain till the completion of financial year 2012-13 relevant to assessment year 2013-14. The assessee was aware that the information will be passed by the Land Revenue Authorities/Sub Registrar to the Income Tax authorities regarding the aforesaid sale deeds showing the registration date as 1.4.2013 and in that event the Income Tax authorities would invoke ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... We have not been impressed by this submission. It is true that 'Transfer' has been defined in Section 2(47) quoted above. But the aforesaid definition was made before Section 50C was introduced to the Income Tax Act. After section 50C was introduced in the year 2003, the value of the land or building or both sold or otherwise transferred has to be the value assessed by the authority of the State Government for the purpose of stamp valuation. The submission that in the financial year 2005-06 when the consideration was received, the Deed of Conveyance had not even been executed has not found favour with us for the simple reason that the intention of the Parliament is that in a case where the land or building or both are sold or otherwise transferred, such transfer shall be deemed to have taken place only after the stamp duty has been assessed by the State Government, because it is on the valuation made for the purpose of stamp duty that the tax is payable under the Income Tax Act. The amendment made in the year 2009 may have made the things simpler, but the intention of the legislature was very clear from the beginning that the value for the purpose of income tax shall be t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stered documents in respect of the same property is to have effect. It has nothing to do with the completion of the registration. The relevant part of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced as under: "Section 47 of the Registration Act does not, however, say when a sale would be deemed to be complete. It only permits a document when registered, to operate from a certain date which may be earlier than the date when it was registered. The object of this section is to decide which of two or more registered instruments in respect of the same property is to have effect. The section applies to a document only after it has been registered. It has nothing to do with the completion of the registration and therefore nothing to do with the completion of a sale, when the instrument is one of sale. A sale which is admittedly not completed until the registration of the instrument of sale is completed, cannot be said to have been completed earlier because by virtue of s. 47 the instrument by which it is effected, after it has been registered, commences to operate from an earlier date. Therefore we do not think that the sale in this case can be said, in view of s. 47, to have b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re, the talab-i-mowasibat made before the date of completion of registration was premature and a suit based on such a demand of the right of pre-emption was premature and must, therefore, fail. Similarly, in Radhakishan L. Toshniwal v. Shridhar [1961] 1 SCR 248; AIR 1960 SC 1368, this court laid down that where a statute providing for the right of pre-emption lays down that it accrues only when transfer of the property takes place and such transfer is not complete except through a registered deed, a suit filed before the sale deed is executed is premature as the right of preemption under the statute did not accrue till the transfer became effective through a registered deed." The Hon'ble Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of "Commissioner of Gift-tax v. Smt. Aloka Lata Sett" [1991] 190 ITR 556 (Calcutta) in the matter of Gift tax assessment, while referring to the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of "Ram Saran Lall v. Mst. Domini Kuer (Supra) and in Hiralal Agrawal v. Rampadarath Singh"(Supra) has held that the date of registration of the gift deed will be relevant for the purpose of gift-tax assessment, observing as under: "The t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned, the relevant date will be the date of registration, when the transfer deed is get completed. Our observations made above, however, are subject to the applicability of provisions of section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act in relation to the definition of transfer under Income Tax Act which is to be seen in the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. The gist of the discussion made above is that the proposition canvassed by Shri Surana, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that by virtue of provisions of section 47 and section 75 of the Registration Act, the transfer will be deemed to be complete on the date of presentation of the deed to the sub registrar is not well founded and is, therefore, repelled. 13. So far as the contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee that since the title of the assessee was defective, therefore, there was no transfer, we do not find any force in the above contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee. The registered sale deed executed in favour of the assessee by Shri Sujit Kr. Bindal has never been set aside by any court of competent jurisdiction. Though, the plea of the assessee is that his sale deed was not valid, whereas, the assessee, him....