ITO, UDAIPUR V. Shri Chand Mohmed, UDAIPUR

ITA 410/JODH/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 82987 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 30-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAI SINGH
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Search and seizure; Loose papers
• Section: 50C; 131; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELALTE TRIBUNAL : JODHPUR BENCH : JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA NO. 410 /JODH/2014 (A.Y. 200 6 - 0 7 ) ITO, WARD - 1(4) , UDAIPUR. VS. SHRI CHAND MOHAMED, S/O SHRI HASSAN BUX KUNDA, H.NO. 462, RAJA COLONY, MULLA TALAI, UDAIPUR. (APPELLANT) PAN NO. CDJPM 8793 A (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI AMIT KOTHARI. DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI JAI SINGH - D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 23 / 0 9 /201 4 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01 / 1 0/201 4 . O R D E R PER N.K. SAINI, A.M TH IS IS AN APPEAL BY THE D EPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 0 9 /0 5 /2014 OF L D . CIT(A), UDAIPUR . THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN: - 2 1. DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 93,58,530/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ARISING ON SALE OF LAND DESPITE THE FACT TH A T SALE DEED OF THE LAND WAS EXECUTED AND DULY REGISTERED ON 02/08/20 05 I.E. A.Y. 2006 - 07 . 1.1 OBSERVING THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE FULL SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE LAND IN THE YEAR 2000 - 01 AND THEREFORE, IT IS NOT TAXABLE IN THE YEAR OF REGISTRATION OF DOCUMENT ON 02/08/2005 IGNORING THAT THE PROVISION OF SECTION 2(47)(V) ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN AS MUCH AS THAT THE ASSESSEE F A I LED T O PRODUCE THE CONTENDED SALE AGREEMENT EITHER BEFORE A.O. OR EVEN BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND THE ASSESSEE ALSO HAD NOT HANDED OVER THE POSSESSION OF IMPUGNED LAND IN THE YEAR 2000 - 01, BOTH OF WHICH ARE ESSENTIAL PREREQUISITE FOR APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 2(47)(V). THAT T HE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD , AMEND, ALTER, DELETE OR MODIFY ANY OR ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2 FROM THE ABOVE GROUNDS, IT IS GATHERED THAT THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE DEPARTMENT IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 93,58,530/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN . 3. FACTS RELATING TO THIS CASE , IN BRIEF, ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION CARRIED OUT AT THE RESIDENCE AND BUSINESS PREMISES OF SHRI BABU LAL MOTAWAT VARIOUS LOOSE PAPERS SUSPECTED TO BE INCRIMINATING WERE FOUND AND SEIZED AND ON GOING THROUGH PAGES FROM 102 TO 110 OF ANNEXURE A - 1, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD HALF OF HIS AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED AT BHUWANA FOR RS. 31,60,000/ - TO SMT. RAJANI MOTAWAT W/O SHRI BABU LAL MOTAWAT, UDAIPUR AND TO SMT. SEEMA 3 LODHA W/O SHRI NARESH LODHA, UDAIPUR . THE STAMP VALUE OF THIS PROPERTY WAS ESTIMATED AT RS. 1,06,11,107/ - AND THE SAME WAS REGISTERED ON 02/08/2005. THUS, THE SALE CONSIDERATION U/S. 50C OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT IN SHORT) WAS CONSIDERED AT RS. 1,06,11,107/ - . H OWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED FROM THE RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY RETURN FOR THE A.Y. 2006 - 07 DECLARING T HE CAPITAL GAIN ASSESSABLE ON ACCOUNT OF ABOVE SAID SALES CONSIDERATION AND THEREFORE, HE ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE HIS RETURN . T HE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE . D URING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , I T WAS SUBMITTED IN WRITING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD HIS AGRICULTURAL LAND STANDING IN ARAJI NO. 2602 TO 2646 DURING THE YEAR 200 0 - 01 FOR RS. 31,60,000/ - , THE WHOLE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THAT YEAR ITSELF , THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND WAS HANDED OVER TO THE PURCHASER DURING THAT YEAR ALSO AND TH A T THE REGISTRATION WAS DELAYED DUE TO FAMILY DISPUTE PENDING BEFORE THE COURT. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT A S SOON AS THE DISPUTE WAS DECIDE D BY THE COURT ON 06/07/2005, THE REGISTRATION OF LAND WAS GOT DONE . THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO EXAMINED THE ASSESSEE U/S. 131 OF THE ACT BY WAY OF RECORDING HIS STATEMENT ON THIS ISSUE AND THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE 4 FACTS AS WERE MENTIONED IN THE WRITTEN EXPLANATION FILED EARLIER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS . HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE SUBMISSION S OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE EITHER COPY OF SALE DEED OR ANY PROOF REGARDING THE POSSESSIO N GIVEN TO THE PURCHASER IN THE YEAR 2000 - 01 . HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT, THE COMPLETION OF SALE CAN ONLY BE TREATED AFTER THE REGISTRATION OF THE RELATED PROPERTIES WHICH WAS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SURAJ LAMP & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF HARYANA REPORTED IN 340 ITR 1 (SC) AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. F.X. PERIERA & SONS (TRAVANCORE) (P) LTD. REPORTED IN (1990) 184 ITR 461 (KER.) IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE , THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALCULATED THE ASSESSABLE CAPITAL GAIN AT RS. 93,58, 831 / - , HOWEVER, BEFORE FINALLY ASSESSING THE ABOVE CAPITAL GAIN, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE DETAILS OF INVESTMENT , IF ANY OUT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS . 4. T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS ALREADY SOLD IN THE F.Y. 2000 - 01 AND THE WHOLE SALES CONSIDERATION WAS ALSO RECEIVED IN THE SAID YEAR AND THE POSSESSION WAS 5 ALSO HANDED OVER IN THAT YEAR ITSELF. AS REGARDS TO THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVIS I ONS OF SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO CLAUSE (V) OF THE SAID SECTION AND STATED THAT TRANSFER WAS COMPLETED IN THE F.Y. 2000 - 01 AND NOT IN THE F.Y. 2005 - 06 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION , T HEREFORE, NO CAPITAL GAIN TAX LIABILITY ARISES IN THIS YEAR . AS REGARDS TO THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT CASE LAWS WERE NOT RELEVANT FOR THE INCOME TAX PURPOSES BECAUSE THOSE WERE RELATED TO TRANSFER OF AGENCY BUSINESS RELATED TO A.Y. 1972 - 73 AND FURTHER AMENDMENT IN TRANSFER AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT WAS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT 1987 W.E.F. 01/04/1988 . THEREFORE, NO CAPITAL GAIN ARISES IN THE A.Y. 2006 - 07 AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT BECAUSE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE IN THE A.Y. 2001 - 02 . RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VISHNU TRADING & INVESTMENT CO. (2003) 259 ITR 724. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER , DID NOT ACCEPT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASON THAT FIRSTLY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE COPY OF SALE DEED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, SECONDLY IF THE WHOLE AMOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE A.Y. 2001 - 02 , THEN IT WAS NOT UNDERSTOOD AS TO WHY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT 6 FILE HIS RETURN OFFERING THE TAXABLE GAIN TO TAX PARTICULARLY WHEN IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE WAS WITHIN THE LIMIT OF MUNICIPAL AREA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ACCORDINGLY, HELD THAT THE CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 93,58,530/ - WAS ASSESSABLE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . 5. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED AS UNDER: - IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ON THE BASIS OF COPY OF LAND REGISTRY FOUND IN THE COURSE SE A RCH ACTION IN THE CASE OF SHRI BABU LAL MOTAWAT ON 03/09/2008. IN THE SAID DOCUMENTS AGRICULTURE LAND WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE TO SMT. RAJNI MOTAWAT & SMT. SEEMA LODHA FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 31,60,000/ - . THE FOR THE STAMP VA L UE THE SA ID DOCUMENT WAS REGISTERED AT RS. 1,06,11,107/ - AND THEREFORE ON THE BASIS OF SUCH INFORMATION NOTICE U/S. 148 WAS ISSUED. THE ASSESSEE BEING OF VERY OLD AGE, NOT IN A POSITION TO WORK AND HAVING NO SOURCE OF INCOME ATTENDED THE OFFICE ON 28/12/2012 . THEREAFTER CASE WAS ATTENDED FROM TIME TO TIME. DURING THE ASST. PROCEEDINGS IT WAS STATED THAT NO CAPITAL GAINS ARISES IN ASSESSEES CASE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION , A LAND IN QUESTION WAS SOLD IN THE YEAR 2000 - 01 IN WHICH ALL THE PAYMENT WERE RECE IVED BY THE ASSESSEE BY CHEQUES AS EVIDENT FROM COPY OF SALE DEED AND POSSESSION WAS HANDED OVER TO THEM ALONG WITH ALL THE DOCUMENTS, POWER OF ATTORNEY AND OTHER RELATED PAPERS SO SALE WAS COMPLETED IN THE YEAR 2000 - 01 AND THEREFORE, NO CAPITAL GAINS ARISES IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 6 . THE ASSESSEE ALSO REFERRED TO THE COMMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING ILLITERATE WAS ENGAGED ONLY IN AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES, THEREFORE, HE WAS 7 NOT AWARE OF THE LEGAL FORMALITIES AND SIMPLY HAD TAKEN THE MONEY AND GAVE THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND ALONG WITH OTHER DOCUMENTS , T HEREFORE, HIS PURPOSE WAS SERVED AND HE WAS HAVING ONLY AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES, SO NEVER FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME. IT WAS FURTHER ST A TED THAT NON - FILING OF THE RETURN FOR THE A.Y. 2001 - 02 , COULD NOT BE A BASIS FOR CHARG ING THE CAPITAL GAIN IN THE A.Y. 2006 - 07. AS REGARDS TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT RELIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT WAS STATED THAT THE SAID DECISION IN THE CASE OF SURAJ LAMP AND INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF HARYANA RELATED TO REGISTRATION ACT 1908 /INDIAN STAMP ACT, 1908 ETC. TO COVER AVOIDANCE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION CHARGE S BY PEOPLE IN SPECIFIED S TATES AND WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO TRANSFER OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY UNDER INCOME - TAX ACT. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT IN THE SAID CASE, NOTICES WERE ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT TO STATES OF PUNJAB, HARYANA, DELHI, U.P. AND MAHARASHTRA (NOT RAJASTHAN) AS TO WHAT STEPS WERE BEING TAKEN BY RESPECTIVE STATES TO DEAL WITH SUCH TRANSACTION AND THERE E FFECTS FOR STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION CHARGES . IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE DECIS ION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAD BEEN MADE EFFECTIVE PROSPECTIVELY FROM 11/10/2011 AND NOT TO AGREEMENTS/POWER OF ATTORNEY WHERE CONVEYANCE WAS EXECUTED BEFORE 11/10/2011 AND IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE REGISTRY OF SUCH LAND WAS ON 02/08/2005 MUCH BEFORE 8 1 1/10/2011. AS REGARDS TO THE ANOTHER DECISION OF KERALA HIGH COURT RELIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT WAS STATED IN THE SAID CASE THAT THE ISSUE RELATED TO TRANSFER OF AGENCY BUSINESS IN THE A.Y. 1972 - 73 AND AMENDMENT IN DEFINITION OF TRANSFER AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(47) (V) OF THE WAS INSERTED BY FINANCE ACT, 1987 W.E.F. 01/04/1988. THEREFORE, THE ABOVE CASE WAS NOT RELEVANT . RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: - 1) NAVNEET KUMAR SARKAR VS. ITO 2 98 ITR (AT) 42 (JODH.) 2) CIT VS. VISHNU TRADING & INVESTMENT CO. (2003) 259 ITR 724 (RAJ.) 3 ) CIT VS. RAJASTHAN MIRROR MANUFACTURING CO. (2003) 260 ITR 503 (RAJ.) 4 ) DCIT VS. WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD. (2012) 16 ITR (TRIB.) 309 ( DELHI) 5) DCIT VS. S. VENKAT REDDY (2013) 57 SOT 117 (HYD.) 6.) VEMANNA REDDY (HUF) VS. ITO (2008) 114 TTJ (BANG.) 246 . 7 . FINALLY, IT WAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED TOTAL CONSIDERATION IN THE F.Y. 2000 - 01 AS EVIDENT FROM PAGE 5 & 6 OF SALE DEED DATED 06/07/2005 REGISTERED ON 02/08/2005 AND THE STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON 20/02/2013 REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CATEGORICALLY REPLIED IN QUESTION NO.6 DETAILED FACT OF THE CASE AND STATED THAT POSSESSI ON OF THE SAID LAND WAS HANDED OVER TO THE PURCHASER IN THE YEAR 2000 . THEREFORE, IT WAS CLEAR THAT POSSESSION OF LAND WAS PARTED WITH AND TOTAL 9 CONSIDERATION THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES WERE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE F.Y. 2000 - 01 AS SUCH TRANSFER U/S. 2(47)(V) R.W.S. 45 OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED IN THE F.Y. 2000 - 01 RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. 2001 - 02 AND NOT IN THE A.Y. 2006 - 07 . 8 . THE LEARNED CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, OBSERVED THAT IT WAS AN UNDISPUTED AND ADMIT TED FACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED THE WHOLE SALES CONSIDERATION OF THE LAND SOLD IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. 2001 - 02 AND SUBSEQUENT TO THE RECEIPT OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION, HAD RELINQUISHED HIS RIGHT ON THE LAND AND HANDED OVER THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND TO THE PURCHASER . THE LD. CIT(A) POINTED OUT THAT THE ABOVE SAID FACT HAD BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY HIM AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S. 131 OF THE ACT , T HIS FACT HAD BEEN REITERATED AND CONFIRMED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE ALSO EXPLAINED THE REASON FOR THE DELAY IN REGISTERING THE PROPERTY IN THE YEAR 2000 - 01 AND IN SUPPORT OF THIS , THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WERE NEVER DISPUTED. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSED THE CAPITAL GAIN IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE 10 REGISTRATION, BUT THE SAID VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT TENABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW BECAUSE AS PER THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE, THE INCOME WAS REQUIRED TO BE ASSESSED EITHER ON ACCRUED BASIS OR ON RECEIPT BASIS. IN THE ASSESSEES CASE , BOTH T HE CONDITIONS WERE FULFILLED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. 200 1 - 02 (WRONGLY MENTIONED AS 2002 - 03) BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION IN THI S YEAR ITSELF THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND THE CAPITAL GAIN WAS ACC R U ED AS THE ASSESSEE HAD AGREED TO SALE THE PROPERTY IN THAT YEAR . RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDG ME NT OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAJASTHAN MIRROR MRG. CO. (2003) 260 ITR 503. ACCORDINGLY, THE CAPITAL GAIN ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DELETED. NOW THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL. 9 . LEARNED D.R. STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE REGISTRATION OF THE LAND WAS DONE IN THE YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THEREFORE, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT, THE CAPITAL GAIN WAS ASSESSABLE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE CAPITAL GAIN WAS NOT ASSESSABLE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION , BUT IT WAS RELATED TO THE A.Y. 2001 - 02. 11 10 . IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MA DE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 11 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE PAYMENTS THROUGH A/C PAYEE CHEQU ES IN THE YEAR RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. 2001 - 02 , THE DETAILS OF THE VARIOUS RECEIPTS THROUGH CHEQUES HAVE BEEN MENTIONED AT PAGE NOS. 5 & 6 OF THE SALE DEED, COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED ON THE RECORD. IN THE SAID SALE DEED, IT IS ALSO MENTIONED THAT THE POSSESSION WAS GIVEN, SO IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE PAYMENT S AND SOLD THE LAND IN THE YEAR RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. 2001 - 02 . THE SAME FACT WAS REITERATED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 131 OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION NO.6, THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY STATED IN HIS ABOVE SAID STATEMENT THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS RECEIVED BY HIM THROUGH WILL FROM HIS SISTER - IN - LAW ON 03/06/1995 AND WAS SOLD FOR A SUM OF RS. 31,60,000/ - TO SMT. RAJANI MOTAWAT W/O SHRI BABU LAL MOTAWAT, UDAIPUR AND TO SMT. SEEMA LODHA W/O SHRI NARESH LODHA, UDAIPUR . THE SAID AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED THROUGH CHEQUES AND THE REGISTRATION COULD NOT BE DONE BECAUSE THE MATTER WAS PENDING IN THE COURT AND WAS SETTLED ON 12 23/07/2005 BY THE COU RT, T HEREAFTER , REGISTRATION OF THE LAND WAS DONE ONLY AFTER THE SAID DATE . SO, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE TRANSACTION TOOK PLACE IN THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. 200 1 - 0 2 , THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF CAPITAL GAIN FOR THE YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 12. ON A SIMILAR ISSUE, THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAJASTHAN MIRROR MANUFACTURING CO. (2003) 260 ITR 503 (SUPRA) , HAS HELD AS UNDER: - TRANSFER OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IS COMPLETE FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCOME - TAX ONCE THE POSSESSION IS HANDED OVER AND THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN PAID, EVEN THOUGH DEED IS NOT REGISTERED. 13 IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, THE TRANSFER OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WAS COMPLETE IN THE YEAR RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. 2001 - 02 SINCE THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE FULL PAYMENT THROUGH CHEQUES AND GAVE THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND TO THE PURCHASER, BUT REGISTRATION COULD NOT BE DONE BECAUSE THE MATTER WAS PENDING IN THE CIVIL COURT AND WH EN THE COURT DECIDED THE ISSUE ON 23/07/2005 , THE REGISTRATION WAS GOT DONE ON 02/08/2005 . WE THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, DO NOT SEE ANY VALID GROUND TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDI NGLY, WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THIS APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT. 13 14 IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. ( ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 01 ST OCTOBER , 201 4) . S D/ - SD/ - ( HARI OM MARATHA ) (N.K.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 01 ST OCTOBER , 201 4 . VR/ - COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE LD. CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE D.R SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , ITAT, JODHPUR .