Smt. Rambhabai Pannalal Baheti, Aurangabad V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 151/PUN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1813 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 24-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 02-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition
• Section: 143(3); 133(6); 148; 54

Judgement Text

- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH SMC , PUNE , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM . / ITA NO. 1 51 /PN/201 6 / ASSESSM ENT YEAR : 20 06 - 07 SMT. RAMBHABAI PANNALAL BAHETI, PLOT NO.15/B, PUSHPANAGRI, CBS ROAD, AURANGABAD . / APPELLANT PAN: A WGPB1988A VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 2(3), AURANGABAD . / RESPONDENT / APP ELLANT BY : NONE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUDHENDU DAS , JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 2 4 . 0 5 .201 6 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27 . 0 5 .201 6 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J M : TH IS APPEAL FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A) - 2 , AURANGABAD , DATED 10 . 11 .20 1 5 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 06 - 07 AGAINST ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . ITA NO. 1 51 /PN/20 1 6 SMT. RAMBHABAI PANNALAL BAHETI 2 2 . TH IS APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 12. 04.2016 AND THEREAFTER ON 24.05.2016. THE NOTICE WAS SENT THROUGH RPAD, BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON EITHER OF THE DATES NOR ANY APPLICATION WAS MOVED FOR ADJOURNMENT. SO, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE PRESENT APPEAL AFTER HEARING THE LEARNE D DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - ON FACTS AND IN LAW, 1 . THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION MADE BY THE A.O. OF RS.5,55,536/ - U/S 54(1) OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT ON THE GROUND THAT RELEVANT DOCUMENTS WERE UNREGISTERED. 2 . THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE TRANSACTION IS BETWEEN THE TWO INTERESTED PARTIES AND THEREFORE THE UNREG ISTERED SALE DEED IS IN THE NATURE OF SELF SERVING DOCUMENT WHICH DOES NOT HAVE EVIDENTIARY VALUE. 3 . THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING, IMPORTANT FACTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT THAT: - A . THE PAYMENTS FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY WERE THROUGH BANK AND BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. B . THE INTENTION OF THE APPELLANT WAS TO INVEST OR PURCHASE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES. C . THE FUNDS WERE INVESTED AND THEREFORE EXEMPTION CANNOT BE DENIED. 4. THE ISSUE ARISING I N THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT AT RS. 5,55,536/ - . 5. BRIEFLY, IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECEIVED INFORMATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DERIVED INCOME BY WAY OF SALE OF IM MOVABLE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 27.02.2012 AND ON 27.09.2012 WHICH REMAINED UN - ATTENDED BY THE ITA NO. 1 51 /PN/20 1 6 SMT. RAMBHABAI PANNALAL BAHETI 3 ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER AFTER RECORDING REASONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT AND AFTER OBTAINING THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT NIL AFTER CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF RE - INVESTMENT IN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD SOLD HOUSE PROPERTY SITUATED AT MALJIPURA, AURANGABAD FOR CONS IDERATION OF RS.18,50,000/ - . THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT IT HAD INVESTED THE SAID SUM OF RS.18,50,000/ - IN NEW RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ONE YEAR PRIOR TO THE DATE OF TRANSFER. THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THE ASSET ON 08.06.2005. THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FROM CAPIT AL GAINS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REPRODUCED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER . ON VERIFICATION OF THE SALE DEED DATED 31.07.2004, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE SAID HOUSE PROPERTY WHICH WA S CLAIMED TO BE THE NEW ASSET W AS STANDING IN THE NAME OF SHRI SUBHASH PANNALAL BAHETI I.E. SON OF THE ASSESSEE . THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE TO THE EFFECT THAT SINCE THE SAID ASSET WAS NOT REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE SAID DEDUCTIO N SHOULD NOT BE DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE SAID PROPERTY THOUGH WAS PURCHASED BY HER SON, AN AREA OF 1500 SQ.FT. WAS SOLD TO THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE CONSIDERATION OF RS.16 LAKHS. A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT DATED 23. 11.2005 IN SUPPORT WAS FURNISHED. FURTHER, SALE DEED DATED 05.01.2006 WAS ALSO FILED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE THAT IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FILED ALONG WITH RETURN OF INCOME , T HE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THAT RE - INVESTM ENT WAS TOWARDS PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ONE YEAR PRIOR TO SALE, WHEREAS AS PER THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOLLOWED BY THE SALE DEED DATED 05.01.2006 , ITA NO. 1 51 /PN/20 1 6 SMT. RAMBHABAI PANNALAL BAHETI 4 T HE SAID INVESTMENT APPEARS TO BE AFTER THE SALE OF PROPERTY. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT BY AN INADVERTENT ERROR, THE SAME WAS MENTIONED AND THE SALE DEED DATED 05.01.2006 SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT BOTH THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT AND SALE DEED WERE UN REGISTERED DOCUMENTS AND IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2( 47) OF THE ACT, WHICH MANDATES REGISTRATION OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO IMMOVABLE PROPERTY W.E.F. 24.09.2001 AND ALSO IN VIEW OF SECTION 54 OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT AND IN THE ABSENCE OF D OCUMENTS BEING REGISTERED, WHY THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE REJECTED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTED THAT ORIGINAL ASSET SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE WAS BY WAY OF REGISTERED SALE DEED AND EVEN THE PURCHASE DEED EXECUTED BY THE SON OF ASSESSEE ON 31.07.2 004 WAS REGISTERED DOCUMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING OUT OF SALE OF PROPERTY ON 08.06.2005 WAS NOT RE - INVES T ED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER CONDITIONS OF SECTION 54(1) OF THE ACT AND ALSO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RESORTED TO DUBIOUS METHOD BY RESORTING TO COLOURABLE DEVICE TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. 6. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL PRE MISES AND WHERE THE AMOUNT WAS PAID BY CHEQUE, THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO INVEST OR PURCHASE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FOR HER OWN RESIDENCE, WAS CLEAR. WHERE THE PAYMENT WAS TRANSFERRED AND POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY WAS OBTAINED, THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) VIDE PARA 9 HELD AS UNDER: - 9. GROUND NO. 1 IS STATES THAT THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY THROUGH NON - REGISTERED, DOCUMENT SHOULD BE ALLOWED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION ITA NO. 1 51 /PN/20 1 6 SMT. RAMBHABAI PANNALAL BAHETI 5 U/S.54 OF THE ACT. IN THIS RESPECT, A COPY OF UNREGISTERED SALE DEED ON A STAMP PAPER OF RS. 100 / - , DATED 05/01/2006 HAS ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED. THE STAMP PAPER IS D ATED 13/05/2000. THIS UNREGISTERED SALE DEED IS BETWEEN TWO INTERESTED PAR T IES THE MOTHER AND THE SON AND HEN CE, IT IS IN THE NATURE OF SELF - SERVING DOCUMENT WHICH DOES NOT HAVE EVIDENTIARY VALUE. AS MENTIONED ABOVE, THE SALE DEED IS D AT ED 05/01/2006. HOWEVER, IN THE SAME SALE DEED THE DATES OF PAYMENT OF CHEQUES WHICH ARE PURPORTEDLY PAID FOR ACQUISITION OF ALLE GED HOUSE PROPERTY ARE MENTIONED AS 06/05/2005, 06/06/2005, 22/06/2005 AND 04/07/2005. IT IS INCOMPREHENSIBLE AS TO HOW AN ACTION IN FUTURE WAS RECORDED AT A PRIOR DATE. IT IS NOT EVEN MENTIONED IN THIS DEED THAT THE CHEQUES WERE POST DATED CHEQUES. HEN CE, THE VERACITY AND GENUINENESS OF THIS DOCUMENT IS DOUBTFUL AND THE SAME IS HELD TO BE UNRELIABLE AND DUBIOUS IN NATURE. NO BENEFIT CAN BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF THIS DOCUMENT. IT MERELY APPEARS TO BE AN AFTERTHOUGHT, CONJURED TO MAKE A S PURIOUS CLAIM. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS ALL THE MORE NECESSARY THAT THE DOCUMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN REGISTERED AND PROPER DUTIES, STAMP DUTY REGISTRATION ETC. SHOULD HAVE BEEN PAID TO PROVE THE BONA FIDE OF THIS DOCUMENT. EVEN THE PLAN OF THE PROPER TY IN THE FORM OF BLUE PRINT HAS NOT BEEN SUBMITTED, WHICH WOULD SHOW THAT 1500 SQ.FT. OF THE PROPERTY WAS CAPABLE OF BEING SOLD INDEPENDENTLY. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALSO DISMISSED. 7. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 8. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THAT THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE WAS WITHOUT ANY BASIS AS THE SALE DEED ON WHICH THE THAT THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE WAS WITHOUT ANY BASIS AS THE SALE DEED ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE IS AN UNREGISTERED DOCUMENT AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRANSFER OF AN ASSET, SUCH A DOCU MENT CANNOT BE RELIED UPON. FURTHER, IT WAS STATED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE THAT THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 05.01.2006, WHICH IN TURN, RECORDS THE PAYMENTS MADE EARLIER I.E. ON 06.05.2005, 06.06.2005, 22.06.2005 AND 04 .07.2005 . IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT BY HIM THAT THE STAMP PAPER ON WHICH THE SAID DOCUMENT IS EXECUTED WAS PURCHASED ON 13.05.2000 AND HENCE, WAS AN UNRELIABLE AND DUBIOUS IN NATURE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FAILED TO SHOW HOW 1500 SQ.FT. OF THE P ROPERTY WAS ALLOTTED TO HER AND NO PLAN OF THE PROPERTY WAS SUBMITTED IN THIS REGARD AND HENCE, THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED BY THE CIT(A). ITA NO. 1 51 /PN/20 1 6 SMT. RAMBHABAI PANNALAL BAHETI 6 9. ON PERUSAL OF RECORD, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RECEIVED CERTAIN INFORMATION ON SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY BY THE ASSESSEE , AGAINST WHICH NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 27.02.2012. ANOTHER NOTICE WAS ALSO ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE TO SEEK INFORMATION, BUT BOTH THE NOTICES WERE REMAINED UN - COMPLIED WITH. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED REASONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT AND AFTER NECESSARY SANCTION ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING NIL INCOME AFTER C LAIMING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF RE - INVESTMENT IN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 54(1) OF THE ACT IS THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE , BEING AN INDIVIDUAL OR HUF , HAD DECLARED INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS ARISING FROM T RANSFER OF LONG TERM ASSET, BEING BUILDING OR LANDS APPURTENANT THERETO AND BEING RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, INCOME FROM WHICH IS CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR BEFORE OR TWO YEARS AFTE R THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE, PURCHASED OR HAS WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AFTER THE DATE CONSTRUCTED A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, THEN THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE DEDUCTION OF COST OF NEW ASSET SO PURCHASED OR CONSTRUCTED, OUT OF AMOUNT OF C APITAL GAINS. 10. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION CLAIMS TO HAVE SOLD HER RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ON 08.06.2005 FOR RS.18,50,000/ - . THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF SAID ASSET WAS DECLARED TO BE AT RS.10,13,170/ - AND WAS ACQUIRED ON 30.03.2000 . AFTER INDEXATION, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS.12,94,464/ - AND THE BALANCE INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS WAS RS.5,55,536/ - . ITA NO. 1 51 /PN/20 1 6 SMT. RAMBHABAI PANNALAL BAHETI 7 AGAINST THE SAID INCOME, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT OF RS.18,50, 000/ - . THE NOTE FOR THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH INVESTMENT READ AS RE - INVESTMENT TOWARDS NEW RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ONE YEAR PRIOR TO DATE OF TRANSFER, HENCE DEDUCT. THE ASSESSEE THUS, DECLARED NIL INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS AND HAD NO OT HER INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT IT HAD MADE INVESTMENT IN THE HOUSE PROPERTY AND IN THIS REGARD FILED SALE DEED DATED 31.07.2004. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE SAID PROPERTY WAS STANDING IN THE NAME OF SHRI SUBHASH PANNALAL BAHETI I.E. SON OF THE ASSESSEE AND IT WAS PUT TO THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF THE ACT SHOULD BE ALLOWED, WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INVESTED INTO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IN HER NAME. THE EXPLANATION OF THE AS SESSEE WAS THAT THOUGH THE SAID PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY HER SON, AN AREA OF 1500 SQ.FT. WAS SOLD TO THE ASSESSEE AGAINST CONSIDERATION OF RS.16 LAKHS. IN THIS REGARD, COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT DATED 23.11.2005 WAS FILED AND THEREAFTER, A COPY OF S ALE DEED DATED 05.01.2006 WAS FILED. IT MAY BE POINTED OUT HERE ITSELF THAT BOTH THESE DOCUMENTS WERE UN - REGISTERED DOCUMENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AGAIN PUT TO THE ASSESSEE THAT IN COMPUTATION OF INCOME, IT HAD DECLARED THAT IT HAD PURCHASED THE PROPER TY ONE YEAR PRIOR TO THE DATE OF TRANSFER. HOWEVER, ALL THESE DOCUMENTS RELATED TO PERIOD LATER THAN THE SALE OF ASSET. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT IT HAD INADVERTENTLY MENTIONED THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE ONE YEAR PRIOR TO THE DATE OF TRANSFER IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME . WITH REGARD TO THE SECOND CONTENTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER THAT SECTION 53 A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT W.E.F. 2 4 .09.2001 MANDATES REGISTRATION OF DOCUMENTS , THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH REPLY AND IN TURN, RELIED ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHANDANBEN MAGANLAL REPORTED ITA NO. 1 51 /PN/20 1 6 SMT. RAMBHABAI PANNALAL BAHETI 8 IN 120 TAXMAN 38 , WHERE IN IT WAS HELD THAT EXE MPTION WAS ALL OWABLE IN CASES OF PURCHASE OF PORTION OF SELF OCCUPIED PROPERTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE SINCE NONE OF THE DOCUMENTS I.E. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT AND SALE DEED WERE REGISTERED ONES AND WHERE THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 53A OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT MANDATES THE REGISTRATION OF DOCUMENTS, SUCH NON - REGISTRATION MAKE THE TRANSAC TION INVALID. IT WAS FURTHER HELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF A DEED OF CONVEYANCE , WHICH WAS DULY STAMPED AND REGISTERED AS REQUIRED BY LAW, IN VIEW OF SECTION 54 OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, WHICH REQUIRED THAT SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY COULD BE MADE ONLY BY REGISTERED INSTRUMENT AND AN UN - REGISTERED INSTRUMENT DOES NOT CREATE ANY INTEREST OR CHARGE ON ITS SUBJECT MATTER, THERE WAS NO MERIT IN THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO STRESSED THAT THE SALE DEED EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR SALE OF ORIGINAL ASSET AND THE PURCHASE DEED EXECUTED BY THE SON OF ASSESSEE ON 31.07.2004 FOR PURCHASE OF AN ASSET WERE REGISTERED DOCUMENTS. THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE OF RE - INVESTMENT IN THE NEW ASSET BY WAY OF SALE DEED DATED 05.01.200 6 IN RESPECT OF 1500 SQ.FT. AREA ON THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE PROPERTY, STANDING IN THE NAME OF SON OF ASSESSEE, WAS HELD TO BE NOTHING BUT AN AFTERTHOUGHT IN ORDER TO CLAIM THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) HAS CLEARLY NOTED THAT IN T HE SO - CALLED SALE DEED DATED 05.01.2006 , THE DATES OF PAYMENT OF CHEQUE S PAID FOR THE ACQUISITION OF ALLEGED HOUSE PROPERTY WERE MENTIONED AS 06.05.2005, 06.06.2005, 22.06.2005 AND 04.07.2005. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE US AND ALSO FAILED TO FURNISH COMPLETE INFORMATION IN THIS REGARD. HOWEVER, FROM THE FACTS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH ITS CASE OF INVESTMENT IN NEW ASSET IN ORDER TO AVAIL THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF THE ACT. AS PER THE SAID PR OVISIONS OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE ITA NO. 1 51 /PN/20 1 6 SMT. RAMBHABAI PANNALAL BAHETI 9 WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR BEFORE THE DATE OF TRANSFER OR TWO YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF TRANSFER CAN PURCHASE A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OR WITHIN THREE YEARS CAN CONSTRUCT THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IN ORDER TO AVAIL THE SAID DE DUCTION. IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT IT HAD INVESTED IN A NEW RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ONE YEAR PRIOR TO THE DATE OF TRANSFER BY WAY OF INVESTMENT OF RS.18,50,000/ - . IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED TH E SALE DEED OF PROPERTY WHICH WAS REGISTERED ON 31.07.2004 IN THE NAME OF HER SON. WHEN CONFRONTED, THAT THE SAID SALE DEED DID NOT BEAR THE NAME OF ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE CHANGED ITS STAND ONCE AGAIN AND POINTED OUT THAT IT HAD ENTERED INTO MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH HER SON ON 23.11.2005 AND ON 05.01.2006, IT HAD EXECUTED A SALE DEED. BOTH THESE DOCUMENTS WERE UN - REGISTERED. THE TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY ARE STATUTORILY REQUIRED TO BE REGISTERED WITH REGISTERING AUTHORITIES AND IN THE ABSENCE OF REGISTRATION, THE PERSON CANNOT CREATE ANY INTEREST OR CHARGE IN SUCH PROPERTY. IN THE ABSENCE OF A DULY STAMPED AND REGISTERED SALE DEED, NO RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST IN AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY CAN BE TRANSFERRED OR INHERITED AS IN THE CAS E OF ASSESSEE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE AN INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF NEW ASSET AS REQUIRED , IN ORDER TO AVAIL THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS TIME AND AGAIN CHANGER HER STAN D I.E. THE FIRST STAND WAS THAT AS AGAINST THE SALE OF OLD ASSET ON 08.06.2005, IT HAD MADE INVESTMENT ONE YEAR BEFORE I.E. BY WAY OF SALE DEED DATED 31.07.2004 , REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE. WHEN CONFRONTED, SHE SAID THAT BY AN INADVERTENT ERROR , S HE HAD MADE EARLIER CLAIM. THEREAFTER, SHE FILED AN UNREGISTERED DOCUMENT WHICH HAS NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE AND THE SAME CANNOT BE RELIED UPON. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FAILED TO ESTABLISH HOW SHE HAD ACQUIRED AN AREA OF 1500 SQ.FT. IN THE PROPERTY ITA NO. 1 51 /PN/20 1 6 SMT. RAMBHABAI PANNALAL BAHETI 10 PU RCHASED BY HER SON , I N THE ABSENCE OF ANY PLANS OR ANY OTHER EVIDENCE FILED IN THIS REGARD. IN THE TOTALITY OF THE ABOVE SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM IN CONFORMITY WITH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS USED DUBIOUS METHODS IN OR DER TO AVAIL THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF THE ACT AND THE SAME ARE UPHELD. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS, DISMISSED. 11 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 27 TH DAY OF MA Y , 201 6 . SD/ - (SUSHMA CHOWLA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 27 TH MA Y , 201 6 . / GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPOND ENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 2 , AURANGABAD ; 4. / THE PR. CIT, AURANGABAD ; 5. , , , - / DR SMC , ITAT, PUNE; / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE