The DCIT. Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad V. Shri Shantilal Prabhudas Patel, Ahmedabad

ITSSA 267/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9713 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 01-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R R MAKWANA
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 54F; 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T(SS).A. NO. 267/AHD/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13) DCIT CENTRAL CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD VS. SHRI SHANTILAL PRABHUDAS PATEL, B-202, MARUTI TOWER, SHIVRANJAN CHAR RASTA, SATELLITE, AHMEDABAD PAN NO. ABXPP3041Q ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI R. R. MAKWANA, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. N. SOPARKAR, AR DATE OF HEARING 12.01.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 18.03.2021 O R D E R PER MS. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: THE INSTANT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.07.2018 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS) 11, AHMEDABAD ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 27.03. 2015 PASSED BY THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS TO THE ACT ) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 8,29,16,210/- ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN HAS BEEN IMPUGNED BEFORE US. 3. THE SHORT FACT LEADING TO THE CASE IS THIS THAT THE APPELLANT ALONG WITH CO-OWNER ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF A PL OT OF LAND ADMEASURING IT(SS)A NO.267/AHD/2018 DCIT VS. SHRI SHANTILAL PRABHUDAS PATEL ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 2 - 19628 SQ. METER, LYING AND SITUATED AT SURVEY NO. 2 55, F. P. NO. 157 AT VILLAGE MAKARBA IN THE DISTRICT OF AHMEDABAD ON 23. 02.2011 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 6,00,00,000/- UPON MAKING PAYM ENT OF RS. 29,40,000/- AS STAMP DUTY IN TERMS OF JANTRI VALUE PREVAILING A S ON 23.02.2011. THE PURCHASER RECEIVED THE SALE CONSIDERATION ON VARIOU S DATES I.E. ON 22.04.2010, 26.05.2010 AND 09.06.2010 BY CHEQUES. THE APPELLANT HEREIN DECLARED THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 3,00,00,000/ - AS RECEIVED BY HIM AND COMPUTED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN FOR A.Y. 2011-12 AG AINST WHICH EXEMPTION OF RS. 2,80,67,475/- WAS CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. HOWEVER, THE LD. AO TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION THE DATE OF DEED OF REGISTRATION OF T HE SAID SALE DEED AS ON 05.08.2011 WHEN THE SAID DOCUMENT WAS REGISTERED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SUB- REGISTRAR UPON MAKING FURTHER PAYMENT OF RS. 52,82, 600/- ON 04.08.2011 TOWARDS THE STAMP DUTY IN TERMS OF THE JANTRI RATE PREVAILING ON THAT DATE. THE LD. AO TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THIS PARTICULA R ASPECT OF THE MATTER ADOPTED THE SALE CONSIDERATION ON LAND OF RS. 16,78 ,08,163/- AS ON 05.08.2011 UNDER SECTION 50C OF THE ACT AND FURTHER COMPUTED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN A.Y. 2012-13 UPON CALCULATING THE APPELLANTS SHARE AT RS. 8,39,04,081/-. RESULTANTLY THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F WAS DENIED SINCE THE CONSTRUCTION WAS MADE FOR THE PERIOD UP T O 30.09.2011. IN APPEAL SUCH CONTENTION OF THE LD. AO HAS BEEN REJECTED AND THE ADDITION OF RS. 8,29,16,210/- TOWARDS CAPITAL GAIN WAS DELETED. HE NCE, THE INSTANT APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL THE LD. DR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE SALE DEED DATED 23.02.2011 DID NOT BEAR TH E SIGNATURES OF THE CONCERNED PARTIES OR THE WITNESSES THEREIN; MERELY BECAUSE STAMP DUTY OF IT(SS)A NO.267/AHD/2018 DCIT VS. SHRI SHANTILAL PRABHUDAS PATEL ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 3 - RS. 29,40,000/- HAS BEEN PAID, THE DOCUMENT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE BEEN EXECUTED ON 23.02.2011. IT WAS FURTHER CONTEN DED BY THE LD. DR THAT SINCE DOCUMENT WAS REGISTERED ON 05.08.2011, THE TR ANSFER, DEEMED TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE ON THAT DATE AND NOT ON 23.02.2011 AND THEREFORE THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS WAS RIGHTLY HELD BY THE AO TO BE CH ARGEABLE IN A.Y. 2012- 13. ON THE BASIS OF THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION AS ON THE DATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE SAID DOCUMENT ON 05.08.2011 UNDER SECTION 50 OF THE ACT THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY WAS FURTHER RIGHTL Y ADOPTED BY THE LD. AO AT RS. 16,78,08,163/- AND COMPUTED LONG TERM CAPITA L GAIN OF RS. 8,29,16,210/- OF THE SHARE OF THE APPLICANT AT RS. 8,39,04,081/- AFTER TAKING INDEX COST OF RS. 9,87,871/- AS ALSO THE ARGUMENT M ADE BY THE LD. DR. SINCE THE CAPITAL GAIN HAS BEEN COMPUTED FOR A.Y. 2 012-13 THE CONDITION OF COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AFT ER THE DATE OF TRANSFER WAS NOT FULFILLED AS THE HOUSE WAS COMPLETED PRIOR TO T HE DATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE DATE AND, THUS, THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F WAS FINALLY DENIED BY THE LD. AO AS CONTENDED BY THE LD. DR. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. SENIOR COUNSEL APPEAR ING FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE FACT THAT THE DEED OF SALE OF THE PLOT OF LAND IN QUESTION MADE ON 23.02.2011 UPON MAKING PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY OF RS. 29,40,000/- FOR THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 6,00 ,00,000/- OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHILE ASSESSING THE L ONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDE D BY THE LD. AR THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID BY CHEQUES ON 22.04.201 0, 26.05.2010 AND 09.06.2010 WHICH IS REFLECTED IN THE DEED OF SALE D ATED 23.02.2011 REGISTERED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR, AHME DABAD WHEN THE STAMP DUTY OF RS. 82,22,600/- WAS PAID ON JANTRI VALUE. IN FACT, THE POSSESSION OF IT(SS)A NO.267/AHD/2018 DCIT VS. SHRI SHANTILAL PRABHUDAS PATEL ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 4 - RIGHT TITLE INTEREST OF THE SAID LAND WAS ALREADY H ANDED OVER TO THE BUYER AS ON 23.02.2011 WHICH IS ALSO REFLECTING IN THE SAID DEED OF SALE. SINCE THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED IN FULL AND POSSESSION THERE IN WAS ALSO HANDED OVER TO THE BUYER ON 23.02.2011 THE TRANSFER ACTUALLY TO OK PLACE IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-11 I.E. A.Y. 2011-12 AND THE APPELLANT RI GHTLY OFFERED CAPITAL GAIN IN A.Y. 2011-12 IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE TRANSFER SINCE DOES NOT FALL IN A.Y. 2012-13 THE ADDITION ON THAT BASIS IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW AS OF THE ARGUMENT AD VANCED BY THE LD. SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES AND WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS AVA ILABLE ON RECORDS INCLUDING THE DEED OF SALE DATED23.02.2011. UPON P ERUSAL OF THE ENTIRE SET OF DOCUMENTS IT APPEARS THAT THE DEED OF SALE WAS M ADE ON 23.02.2011 UPON MAKING PAYMENT OF RS. 29,40,000/- TOWARDS THE STAMP DUTY FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS. 6,00,00,000/-. IT FURTHER APP EARS THAT THE PAYMENT OF SALE CONSIDERATION WAS MADE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE C HEQUES ON 22.04.2010, 26.05.2010 AND 09.06.2010 AND THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY WAS HANDED OVER TO THE BUYER AS ON 23.02.2011 I.E. ON THE DAY WHEN THE BANAKHAT WAS EXECUTED. WE, THUS, FIND SUFFICIENT SUBSTANCE IN T HE ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY THE LD. SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE. ON THE CONTRARY, AS BECAUSE THE BANAKHAT DATED 23.02.2011 DID NOT CONTA IN SIGNATURES OF THE CONCERNED PARTIES OR WITNESSES THE SAME COULD NOT B E TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AS THE VALID DOCUMENT AS CONTENDED BY THE LD. DR COULD NOT BE APPRECIATED. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE SAID BANAKHAT HAVE BEEN FRANKED BY KALUPUR COMMERCIAL BANK ON THE SAME DATE I.E. ON 23.02.2011 FOR PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY OF RS. 29,40,000/- WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THERE IT(SS)A NO.267/AHD/2018 DCIT VS. SHRI SHANTILAL PRABHUDAS PATEL ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 5 - CANNOT HAVE ANY EXISTENCE OF ANY BANAKHAT LATER DAT E THAN 23.02.2011. FRANKING BY BANK FOR PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY OF STATE GOVERNMENT EXCHEQUER CANNOT BE BACK DATED WHICH PARTICULAR FAC T AS ALSO RIGHTLY BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE DE LETING THE ADDITION AGAINST THE APPELLANT. APART FROM THAT THE DOCUMEN T DATED 23.02.2011 WAS DULY STAMPED FOR RS. 29,40,000/- AT SR. NO. ASR 627 94; MORESO, THE DOCUMENT IS DULY SIGNED IN EACH PAGE BY BOTH THE VE NDORS AND PURCHASERS FOR THE TOTAL AGGREGATE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 6,00,0 0,000/-. THE PAYMENT OF TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 6,00,00,000/- WAS DULY R ECEIVED AS REFLECTED IN THE SCHEDULE OF PAYMENT IN THE SAID DEED OF SALE DATED 23.02.2011 AT PAGES 15 TO 17 THEREOF ON THREE DIFFERENT DATES I.E. 22.04.2010 , 26.05.2010 AND 09.06.2010 AS THE FULL SETTLEMENT OF THE SALE CONSI DERATION. THE VENDOR DISCHARGED THE LIABILITIES BY TRANSFERRING THE RIGH T TITLE AND INTEREST OF THE SAID PLOT OF LAND BY HANDING OVER POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 23.02.2011 AS APPEARED FROM THE REGISTERED DEED. E VENTUALLY THE SAID DOCUMENT WAS REGISTERED ON 05.08.2011 UPON MAKING F URTHER STAMP DUTY OF RS. 52,82,600/- WHICH CAN NEVER BE THE CONDITION OF ASSESSING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF THE ASSESSEE CONSIDERING THE JANTRI VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON THAT DATE I.E. 05.08.2011 WHEN THE DEED GOT REGISTE RED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR. THE TEST WOULD BE AS TO WHEN THE TR ANSFER TAKES PLACE MEANING THEREBY THE TRANSFER OF POSSESSION OF THE P ROPERTY UPON PAYMENT OF CONSIDERATION OR TRANSFER BY WAY OF ULTIMATE REGIST RATION OF THE DEED OF CONVEYANCE. NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT THE OWNER TRA NSFERRED THE RIGHT, TILE AND INTEREST OF THE CAPITAL ASSET TO THE PURCHASERS WHEN THE CONSIDERATION IS MADE. SIMULTANEOUSLY THE PURCHASER STARTED ENJOYIN G THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY UPON MAKING PAYMENT FOR THE SAME. MERELY BECAUSE THE SALE DEED IT(SS)A NO.267/AHD/2018 DCIT VS. SHRI SHANTILAL PRABHUDAS PATEL ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 6 - WAS EXECUTED ON A LETTER DATE ONLY TO INVOKE TAXING STATUTE THE TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY CANNOT BE QUESTIONED WHEN THE RIGHT, T ITLE AND INTEREST IN REGARD TO THE PROPERTY ALREADY BEEN TRANSFERRED AND/OR DEV OLVED UPON THE PURCHASER BY VIRTUE OF WHICH THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY H AD STARTED TO BE ENJOYED BY THE PURCHASER. THUS, THE TRANSFER IN THE INSTAN T CASE TOOK PLACE ON 23.02.2011 I.E. IN A.Y. 2011-12 AND ULTIMATELY GOT REGISTERED ON 05.08.2011 I.E. IN A.Y. 2012-13. 7. IN THIS RESPECT WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ARUNDHATI BALKRISHNA VS. CIT 138 ITR 245 (GUJ.). UPON CONSIDERING THE PROVISION OF SEC. 47 OF THE REGISTRATION ACT AND SECTION 45 OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961 THE HONBLE COURT HAS BEEN PLEASED TO HOLD AS FOLLOWS:- IN SO FAR AS THE EXPRESSION TRANSFER OF CAPITAL A SSET EFFECTED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR OCCURRING IN SECTION 45 IS CONCERNED, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO T AKE THE VIEW THAT THE TRANSFER IS EFFECTED ON THE DATE ON WHICH THE DOCUMENT IS COPIED OUT IN THE BOO KS OF THE REGISTRAR. IT COULD THEREFORE BE SAID THAT SECTION 47 WOULD BE ATTRACTED EVEN IN RES PECT OF A TRANSACTION OF SALE WHEN THE QUESTION ARISES IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DECISIVE DATE FOR ASCERTAINING THE RATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET BECOMES EFFECTIVE UNDER SECTION 45. THE TRANSACTION MUST BE TREATED AS HAVING BECOME EFFECTIVE FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE DOCUMENT WAS EXECUTED IN CASE ITS REGISTRATION IS SUBSEQUENTLY ADMITTED BEFORE TH E REGISTRAR AND EVENTUALLY IT IS REGISTERED. THE SAID JUDGMENT HAS FURTHER BEEN FOLLOWED BY TH E JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HO RMASJI MANDHARJI VAID 250 ITR 542 (GUJ.) AS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. AR. T HE QUESTION AROSE BEFORE THE HONBLE COURT AS TO WHETHER THE TRANSFER IN QUESTION WAS EFFECTED ON 13.10.1973 IN THE A.Y. 1974-75 WHEN THE DOCUMENT IN QUESTION WAS EXECUTED OR IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1975-76 WHEN THE SAME WAS REGISTERED BEFORE THE OFFICE OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR. WHILE ADDR ESSING THE ISSUE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS BEEN PLEASED TO OBSERVE AS F OLLOWS:- 20. IN OUR VIEW, CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID DECISIO NS AND THE OBJECT OF THE ACT, DEFINITION GIVEN IN THE ACT IS REQUIRED TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSI DERATION. WHEN THE DOCUMENT IS EXECUTED, IT(SS)A NO.267/AHD/2018 DCIT VS. SHRI SHANTILAL PRABHUDAS PATEL ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 7 - THE PROPERTY PASSES AND MERELY BECAUSE THERE IS NO REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE, THE STATE COFFERS SHOULD NOT SUFFER. IF THE VIEW PROPOUNDED THAT ONL Y ON REGISTRATION, ACT OF TRANSFER WILL BE COMPLETE, THEN IN THAT CASE, IF THE DOCUMENT IS NOT REGISTERED, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE WILL BE ENJOYING THE PROPERTY, HE WILL SAY THAT HE IS NOT L IABLE TO PAY THE TAX. BUT THAT IS NOT THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE. IN OUR OPINION, THE WORD TRANSFER AS INDICATED IN THE INCOME- TAX ACT IS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED AND NOT SALE AS INDICATED IN THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT. IF THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE WAS DIFFE RENT, THEN THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN SPECIFIC REFERENCE. RELEVANT PROVISION OF CLAUSE (47) OF SE CTION 2 IS AS UNDER: UNLESS CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES, TRANSFER IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD IN THE SIMPLE MEANING AS IT IS INDICATED WHICH INCLUDES SALE, EXCHANGE OF RELINQUISHMENT OF THE AS SET OR THE EXTINGUISHMENT OF ANY RIGHTS THERE OR THE COMPULSORY ACQUISITION THEREOF UNDER A NY LAW. IF THE WORDS ARE DEFINED IN THE ACT ITSELF, THEN IT IS NOT PROPER TO READ THE MEANING OF THE SIMILAR WORDS GIVEN IN ANOTHER STATUTE UNLESS OTHER WISE EXPRESSLY PROVIDED. IN THE INCOME-TAX ACT, WHEREVER LEGISLATURE HAS THOUGHT FIT TO HAVE T HE MEANING OF THE WORD PROVIDED IN DIFFERENT STATUTE SPECIFIC PROVISION HAS BEEN MADE. IN OUR OPINION, THEREFORE, TRANSFER AS DEFINED IN THE ACT IS TO BE GIVEN SIMPLE MEANING AS INDICATED. THERE ARE VARIOUS METHODS BY WHICH THERE CAN BE AVO IDANCE OF TAX. THE TAX EVADERS ALWAYS KEEP FAITH IN THEIR COUNTERPARTS. EVEN PROPERTY IS BEING TRANSFERRED BY MERELY EXECUTING SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY ON THE STAMP PAPER OF RS. 20 AND THE TRANSFER DEED IS NOT EXECUTED AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE LAW. THE TRANSFEROR PUTS TRANSFEREE IN POSSESSION BUT IN VIEW OF THE DOCUMENT, NAMELY, POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY THE TRANSFEROR, IT IS SAID THAT THE TRANSFEREE IS NOT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY THOUGH FOR ALL PRA CTICAL PURPOSES TRANSFEREE ACTS THE OWNER, IN VIEW OF IRREVOCABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY. BY THIS MET HOD TAX EVADERS ARE SECURING DOUBLE BENEFITS, I.E., AVOIDANCE OF INCOME-TAX AND STAMP D UTY. IT SEEMS THAT CONSIDERING VARIOUS DEVICES WHICH THE TAX EVADERS ARE APPLYING, THE LEG ISLATURE, THEREFORE, AMENDED BY INSERTING CLAUSES IN THE DEFINITION OF TRANSFER BY CLAUSE ( 47) OF SECTION 2 WHICH IS AS UNDER: (47) TRANSFER, IN RELATION TO A CAPITAL ASSET, I NCLUDES,- (I) THE SALE, EXCHANGE OR RELINQUISHMENT OF THE ASS ET; OR (II) THE EXTINGUISHMENT OF ANY RIGHTS THEREIN; OR (III) THE COMPULSORY ACQUISITION THEREOF UNDER ANY LAW; OR (IV) IN A CASE WHERE THE ASSET IS CONVERTED BY THE OWNER THEREOF INTO, OR IS TREATED BY HIM AS, STOCK-IN-TRADE OF A BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY HIM, SUCH CONVERSION OR TREATMENT; OR (V) ANY TRANSACTION INVOLVING THE FOLLOWING OF THE POSSESSION OF ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY TO BE TAKEN OR RETAINED IN PART PERFORMANCE OF A CO NTRACT OF THE NATURE REFERRED TO IN SECTION 53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 (4 OF 188 2); OR (VI) ANY TRANSACTION (WHETHER BY WAY OF BECOMING A MEMBER OF, OR ACQUIRING SHARES IN, A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, COMPANY OR OTHER ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS OR BY WAY OF ANY AGREEMENT OR ANY ARRANGEMENT OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER WHATSOEVER) WHICH HAS THE EFFECT OF TRANSFERRING, OR ENABLING THE ENJOYMENT OF, ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. EXPLANATION.- FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUB-CLAUSES (V) A ND (VI), IMMOVABLE PROPERTY SHALL HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS IN CLAUSE (D) OF SECTION 269UA. 21. IN CASE OF OWNERSHIP, THERE IS A TRANSFER OF CA PITAL ASSETS. THIS IS A CASE OF LEASE. THE TRANSFEREE WAS PUT IN POSSESSION AND WAS ENJOYI NG THE PROPERTY AS A LEASE HOLDER. THERE CANNOT BE DIFFERENT CRITERIA FOR TRANSFER OF CAPITA L ASSET. FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAX EVEN IF DOCUMENT, I.E., CONVEYANCE IS NOT EXECUTED BUT THE TRANSFEREE EXERCISES ALL THE RIGHTS OF THE TRUE OWNER, ONE CANNOT EMPHASIZE FOR THE TAXATION P URPOSE THAT UNLESS AND UNTIL THE DEED OF IT(SS)A NO.267/AHD/2018 DCIT VS. SHRI SHANTILAL PRABHUDAS PATEL ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 8 - CONVEYANCE TRANSFERRING THE RIGHTS IN PROPERTY IS E XECUTED, THE TRANSFEREE IS NOT LIABLE THOUGH DID EVERYTHING WHICH IS REQUIRED FOR ACQUIRING A PR OPERTY. AS POINTED OUT, VENDOR IS NOT PERMITTED IN LAW TO DISPOSES OR QUESTION THE TITLE OF THE VENDEE. WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE COURT HAS BEEN PLEASED TO GIVE CREDENCE ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY BY WAY OF TRANSFERRING THE RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST OF THE PROPERTY AND NOT T HE DATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE DEED OF CONVEYANCE. THUS, WE FIND THAT THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE ABOV E JUDGMENTS PASSED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS RIGHTLY BEEN A PPLIED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BY HOLDING THE SAID TRANSFER TOOK PLACE ON 23.02.20 11 WHEN THE POSSESSION WAS HANDED OVER TO THE PURCHASER RELEVANT TO THE A. Y. 2011-12 AND CONSEQUENTLY DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 8,29,16,2 10/- WITHOUT ANY AMBIGUITY SO AS TO WARRANT INTERFERENCE. HENCE, TH E APPEAL PREFERRED BY REVENUE IS FOUND TO BE DEVOID OF ANY MERIT AND HENC E DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 18/0 3/2021 SD/- SD/- (WASEEM AHMED) (MS. MADHUMITA ROY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 18/03/2021 TANMAY, SR. PS TRUE COPY / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 5. , ! ' , #$%% / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. &' () / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) !, #$ / ITAT, AHMEDABAD