TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or sale or by relinquishment. In the instant case, the sale has taken place within the meaning of transfer of property on 11.12.2018, therefore, the transfer took place only on 11.12.2018. The contention of the learned Counsel for the assessee that the possession of the property was handed over by the assessee to the Developer on 4.2.2008 is without any basis as the contents of the registered document cannot be denied or disbelieved based on a specific undated document given by the Developer. Developer happens to be the signatory of the sale deed, therefore, the Developer cannot issue a document contrary to the contents of the registered document to which he is a signatory. Undoubtedly, the possession has been given only on 11.12.2008 and therefore, it was taken place only on 11.12.2008 and hence we do not find any merit in the appeal of the assessee. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. - ITA No : 538/Hyd/2018, 8/Hyd/2021 And 14/Hyd/2019 - - - Dated:- 28-7-2023 - Shri R.K. Panda, Vice-President AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CA (S.No.1 2) None appeared for S.No.3 For the Revenue : Shri Kumar Aditya, DR ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pleased to admit the same in the interest of justice. 3. The learned Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the certificate issued by the Developer wherein the Developer had stated that the possession of the property has been taken by it from the assessee at the time of entering into agreement i.e. on 4.2.2008. 4. Copy of the letter dated N I L by Walden Properties Pvt. Ltd, read as under: Walden Properties Pvt. Ltd To whomsoever it may concern This is to certify that we have entered into agreement of sale of purchase of land admeasuring Ac 2.35 guntas (out of total extent of land of Ac 05.15 guntas) in Survey No.86,87, 90 and 92 of Raidurga Panmaktha, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from Shri B Ranga Reddy 10 others on 04.02.2008 and paid a consideration of Rs. 10,07,50,000/- (Rupees Ten Crore Seven Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) being 25% of the estimated sale value which is acknowledged by all the owners. We have also taken possession of the said land on 04.02.2008. We further certify that the same is part of the books of account of the company and have been reported in the return of income filed before Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the lower authorities have not granted sufficient opportunity to the assessee to adduce the evidence on the point of reference or the evidence was not in possession of the assessee despite best efforts made by the assessee. In the present case nothing has been brought to our notice to prove the same by the assessee, therefore, we do not find any reason to admit the documents now filed by the assessee which is undated and unstamped and a self-serving in nature. In the light of the above, the additional evidence filed by the assessee is rejected. 7. Now coming to the merit of the case, the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and along with others sold immovable property vide document No.224 of 2009 admeasuring 2.35 acres in Survey No.86, 87, 90 and 92 Raidurg Panmaktha Village, Serilingampally Mandal, RR District, registered at SRO, Ranga Reddy on 11.12.2008 to M/s. Asara Theme Projects (P) Ltd. The said property was sold for a total consideration of Rs. 38,92,05,000/- and the then assessee Smt. G. Sumitra Devi has received Rs. 3,09,95,500/- as part of her share. The Assessing Officer observed from the records that the assessee has not filed her return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ahmedabad in the case of Sri Nimish Kalayanbhai, order dated 19.12.2018. 10. The following is the analysis of the paper book submitted by the assessee, Smt. Cheruvu Madhavi L/R Smt. Gundavarapu Sumitra Devi: S.No Page Nos. Particulars 1 1 to 51 Copy of sale cum development cum General Power of Attorney dated 4.2.2008 1.1 3 S.No.3/17 appellant as owner (A) 1.2 6 10 Walden Property Pvt. Ltd agreement holder ( C ) of owners 1 to 11 for Ac. 2.35 Guntas paid Rs. 10,07,50,000/-. 1.3 9 Services of D.K. Ramarao to be paid Rs. 5,00,00,000 in all to him 1.4 11 12 Schedule of payment to 1 to 11 Balance to be paid within 90 days from 4.2.2008 1.5 14 a) Owner 10 to 17 (B) retained ownership of balance land Acres 2.20 gts (B) b) all the owners and agent holder app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c) Developer (D) d) Asian Theknes Projects (P) Ltd Purchaser (E) 3.1 64 Agreement holder (C) nominated purchaser (E) for the purpose of execution of sale deed 3.2 64 Clause 1 in consideration of amount received from Agreement holder . Agreement holder discharged 3.3 65 Schedule balance payment Total Rs. 38,92,05,000 only Clause 2 (a) Vendors and agreement holder induct purchaser into joint possession b) Purchaser shall be entitled to all benefits of agreement holder as per terms of agreement Without any further reference to vendors/and agreement holder c) Developer agrees for the change. 11. Per contra, the learned DR vehemently argued that no transfer took place within the meani ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Agreement to develop the property entered between 17 parties including the assessee referred as owners and agreement holder namely Walden Properties Pvt. Ltd. and developer namely Welbilt Properties Ltd, and according to this tri-party agreement dated 4-2-2008 only right to construction was sought to be given to the Developer and fixing entitlements of share of the built up area of the property, fixing the date of payment of consideration to the vendors including the assessee, subject to fulfillment of several other conditions in future. The opening words of the document dated 4.2.2008 starts as under: This Memorandum of Cum-General Power of Attorney Sale-cum- Development is made Agreement and Fourth day of executed on this February, 2008, at Hyderabad, by and between- 5.1 According to this agreement dated 4-2-2008, assessee has received Rs. 74,68,750/- on 4-2-2008 as 1st installment being appellant's share of 25% of the estimated sale consideration value of Rs. 10,07,50,000/- from agreement holder and balance 75% of the value of appellant's share of sale consideration amounting to deducting Rs. 2,49,06,250/- after certain expenses which was required to be paid by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s mentioned in the sale deed dated 11-12-2008 was 11 including assessee. 13. From a perusal of the above, it is abundantly clear that in the sale deed 11.12.2008 that for the first time the possession was handed over by the assessee to the purchaser namely Asara Themes Projects (P) Ltd. For the above said purposes, we may reproduce para 2 of the sale deed at page 12 of the CIT (A) order which mentioned as under: 2. The vendors and the Agreement Holder have today inducted the Purchaser herein into joint possession of the Schedule Land and the Purchaser shall be entitled to enjoy the Schedule Land as per the terms of the Agreement and shall be entitled to deal with the Developer as absolute owner in respect of the Schedule Land and receive all the benefits of the Agreement as per the terms of the Agreement without any further reference to the Vendors and the Agreement Holder. The Developer hereby acknowledges and agrees for the said change in favour of the purchaser . 14. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property which defines the sale as under: Section 54 in The Transfer of Property Act, 1882: 54. Sale defined. Sale is a transfer of ownership in exchange ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e deed, therefore, the Developer cannot issue a document contrary to the contents of the registered document to which he is a signatory. Undoubtedly, the possession has been given only on 11.12.2008 and therefore, it was taken place only on 11.12.2008 and hence we do not find any merit in the appeal of the assessee. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 16 In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. ITA No.8/Hyd/2021 Smt. Yashoda Gundavarapu -A.Y 2009-10 17. In the above appeal, the assessees raised similar issues as in ITA No.538/Hyd/2018 and we have already decided the issue against the assessee. Following similar reasonings, these two appeals are also dismissed. ITA No.14/Hyd/2019 Shri M. Hanmanth Reddy, A.Y 2009-10 18. It is pertinent to mention here that none appeared on behalf of the assessee in this appeal despite number of opportunities granted. Since the grounds of appeal and the facts of the instant appeal are identical to the grounds raised by the assessees in the above two appeals, therefore, the findings given in the above appeals will apply mutatis mutandis. Accordingly following similar reasonings appeal in Ita No.14/Hyd/2019 is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
