Sh. DR. RATTAN SINGH M.P., Amritsar V. The Income Tax Officer, Amritsar

MA 26/ASR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4625 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 23-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 05-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset

Judgement Text

MA NO.26(ASR)/2016 A.Y. 2007-08 2 SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CHALLENGED THE SAID ORDER DATED 19.08.2013 BEFORE THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH CURT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH, VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 19.08.20 13 DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF TH E ITAT, CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF SH. CHARANJIT ATWAL VS. ITO (S UPRA), WHICH HAS NOW BEEN OVER-RULED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF C.S. ATWAL VS. CIT , ITA NO.200/2013 DATED 22.07.2017. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS CONCLUDED AT PARA 46 AS UNDER: '46. WE SUMMARIZE OUR CONCLUSIONS AS UNDER:- 1. PERUSAL OF THE JDA DATED 25.2.2007 READ WITH SA LE DEEDS DATED 2.3.007 AND 25.4.2007 IN RESPECT OF 3.08 ACRE S AND 4.62 ACRES RESPECTIVELY WOULD REVEAL THAT THE PARTIES HA D AGREED FOR PRO- RATA TRANSFER OF LAND. 2. NO POSSESSION HAD BEEN GIVEN BY THE TRANSFEROR TO THE TRANSFEREE OF THE ENTIRE LAND IN PART PERFORMANCE O F JDA DATED 25.2.2007 SO AS TO FALL WITHIN THE DOMAIN OF SECTIO N 53A OF 1882 ACT. 3. THE POSSESSION DELIVERED, IF AT ALL, WAS AS A L ICENCEE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY AND NOT IN THE CAPACITY OF A TRANSFEREE. 4. FURTHER SECTION 53A OF 1882 ACT, BY INCORPORATI ON, STOOD EMBODIED IN SECTION 2(47)(V) OF THE ACT AND ALL THE ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 53A OF 1882 ACT WERE REQUIRE D TO BE FULFILLED. IN THE ABSENCE OF REGISTRATION OF JDA DATED 25.2.20 07 HAVING BEEN EXECUTED AFTER 24.9.2001, THE AGREEMENT DOES NOT FA LL UNDER SECTION 53A OF 1882 ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY SECTION 2(47)(V) O F THE ACT DOES NOT APPLY. 5. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE/APPELLANT THAT WHATEVER AMOUNT WAS RECEIVE D FROM THE DEVELOPER, CAPITAL GAINS TAX HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID ON THAT AND SALE DEEDS HAVE ALSO BEEN EXECUTED. IN VIEW OF CANCELLAT ION OF JDA DATED 25.2.2007, NO FURTHER AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED AND NO ACTION THEREON HAS BEEN TAKEN. IT WAS URGED THAT AS AND WH EN ANY AMOUNT IS RECEIVED, CAPITAL GAINS TAX SHALL BE DISCHARGED THEREON IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID STAND , WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEALS, WE OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSEE APPELL ANTS SHALL REMAIN BOUND BY THEIR SAID STAND. MA NO.26(ASR)/2016 A.Y. 2007-08 4 THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE RECALL THE ORDER THE TRIBUNAL, DATED 19 TH AUGUST, 2013 OF THIS BENCH AND FIX THE MAIN APPEAL FOR HEARING ON 04.10.2016. NO SEPARATE NOTICE BE ISSUED AS THE CASE WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION OF THE ASSE SSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23/0 8/ 2016. SD/- SD/- (A.D. JAIN) (T.S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /SKR/ DATED: 23/08/2016 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:DR. RATTAN SINGH, EX-MP, VILLAGE AJNAL A, AMRITSAR. 2. THE ITO WARD 5(4), AMRITSAR. 3. THE CIT(A), ASR 4. THE CIT, ASR. 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.