Shri Gandabhai Becharbhai Patel, Himatnagar V. The Income Tax Officer,S.K. Ward-3, Himatnagar

MA 310/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7671 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 10-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LALIT P JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVETIA
• Keywords: Deduction for capital gain
• Section: 195

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH BEFORE: SHR I MAHAVIR PRASAD , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER GANDALAL BECHARBHAI PATEL, PATEL ADVANCE PATHOLOGY LAB ARYO GANAGAR, HIMMATNAGAR (DIST. S.K.) - 383001 PAN: AAACE630 8L (APPELLANT) VS THE IT O , S.K. WARD - 3 , HIMMATNAGAR (RESPONDENT) REVE NUE BY : S H RI LALIT P. JAIN , SR. D . R. ASSESSEE BY: SHRI S.N. DIVETIA, A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 15 - 02 - 2 019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03 - 04 - 2 019 / ORDER P ER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : - THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AGAINST THE ORDER OF ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH SMC VIDE ITA NO. 201/AHD/2014 DATED 10 - 07 - 2018. 2. VIDE THE AFORESAID MA, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER : - M.A. NO. 310/AHD/2018 (IN I T A NO . 201 / A HD/20 14 ) A SSESSMENT YEAR 200 9 - 10 M.A. NO. 310/AHD/2018 (IN I.T.A NO. 201 /AHD/20 14 ) A.Y. 2009 - 10 PAGE NO GANDALAL BECHARBHAI PATEL VS. IT O 2 3. THE AFORESAID APPEAL HAS BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT THE PLOT NO. 12 WHICH WAS CLAIMED BY THE APPLICANT TO BE PURCHASED ON 30.05.1984 FOR RS.25,000/ - WAS NOT SUPPORTED WITH PROPER REGISTERED AGREEMENT AND THE OWNERSHIP OF PLOT NO. 13 COULD NOT BE SUBSTANTIATED BY THE APPLICANT WITH REGISTERED DOCUMENT. HENCE, THE ENTIRE SALE PROCEEDS WERE TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES INSTEAD OF CAPITAL GAIN AS CLAIMED BY THE APPLICANT. 4. THE APPLICANT SUBMITS WITH GREATEST RESPECT THAT THERE ARE FACTUA L MISTAKES IN THE AFORESAID FINDING GIVEN BY THE HON. TRIBUNAL. THE APPLICANT SUBMITS THAT HE HAD FILED PAPER BOOK DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WHEREIN THE COPY OF REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 02.12.2008 IN GUJARATI WAS PLACED 28 - 246 AND ITS FR EE ENGLISH TRANSLATION AT PAGE - 68 - 86. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAID SALE, DEED, IT IS APPARENT THAT, THE PROPERTY SOLD WAS PLOT NO. 12 OF SURVEY NO.113 ADMEASURING ABOUT 539,74 SQM =5810 SQ. F T . AND THE DESCRIPTION, GIVING HISTORY OF THIS PROPERTY STATED THAT THE NORTH SIDE OF PLOT NO. 12 ADMEASURING 344,63 SQM WAS PURCHASED FROM ONE RAMANL AL NATHALAL KAMI BY REGISTERED DEED DATED 19.07,1982 WHEREAS THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE SAID PLOT ADMEASURING 1.95.09 SQM WAS PURCHASED FROM. RAMANLAL JHAVERCHAND SANGHVI BY REGIS TERED, DEED DATED, 10.07.1990. THUS, THE APPARENT OWNER CAME TO OWN THE AGGREGATE AREA OF 539.74 SQM AND THE ENTRY OF AGGREGATION, WAS PASSED IN THE RECORD OF RIGHT BY TALATI WHICH IS ALSO STATED, IN THE AFORESAID SALE DEED 02,12.2018. THUS, IT IS AN APPAR ENT ERROR TO HOLD THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SOLD PLOT NO. 12 AND 13. 5. THE APPLICANT SUBMITS WITH UTMOST RESPECT THAT ASSUMING FOR SAKE OF ARGUMENT THAT THE AGREEMENT DATED 30.05.1984 WAS TO BE DISBELIEVED, THE OWNERSHIP OF THE APPLICANT WITH REGARD TO THE 3 34.65 SQM OF EASTERN, SIDE OF PLOT NO..12 CANNOT BE DOUBTED, OR DISBELIEVED. THEREFORE, THE SALE PROCEEDS ON PRO - RATA BASIS IN RESPECT OF THE AREA OF THE 334.65 SQM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TREATED/HELD AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND THE SAME OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS CONSIDERATION RECEIVED ON TRANSFER OF SO MUCH OF LAND. 6. UNDER THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPLICANT, SUBMITS THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL MAY BE RECTIFIED TO THE EXTE NT: OF SALE PROCEEDS 334.65 SQM OTHERWISE IT WOULD CAUSE GREAT INJUSTICE AND HARDSHIP TO THE APPLICANT WITHOU T, ANY CAUSE ATTRIBUTABLE TO IT. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS ON THIS ISSUE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD CAREFULLY. IT IS NOTICED THAT WHILE ADJUDICATING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE AFORESAID ITA 201/AHD/2014 DATED 10 TH JULY, 2018 THE MATERIAL FACTS WERE ELABORATED IN THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE ITAT . THE MATERIAL FACTS OF THE CASE AS ELABORATED IN THE ORDER OF THE ITAT VIDE ITA NO. 201/AHD/2014 DATED 10 T H JULY, 2014 IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER : - 3. THE BRIEF FACT OF THE CASE IS THAT RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 1,83,446/ - WAS FILED ON 19 TH NOV, 2009. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED UNDER SCRUTINY BY ISSUING OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT O N 30 TH AUGUST, 2010. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S. 54EC(1)(B) OF THE ACT FOR RS. 16 LACS ON LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 18 LACS ARISING FROM SALE OF NON - AGRICULTURAL PLOT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ON VERIFICATION OF THE DETAILS OF OWNERSHIP OF THE PLOT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE SOLD PROPERTY WITH DESCRIPTION OF PLOT NO. 12 OF SURVEY NO. 113 APPROXIMATELY 344.65 SQ. METER WAS SHOWN AS PURCHA SED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SHRI KIRITKUMAR KHODABHAI PATEL ON 30 TH MAY, 1984 FOR RS. 25000/ - UNDER SALE AGREEMENT (VACHAN KARAR). THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FURTHER NOTICED THAT THIS SALE AGREEMENT WAS MADE ON PLAIN PAPER AND THIS M.A. NO. 310/AHD/2018 (IN I.T.A NO. 201 /AHD/20 14 ) A.Y. 2009 - 10 PAGE NO GANDALAL BECHARBHAI PATEL VS. IT O 3 DOCUMENT WAS NOT REGISTERED WITH ANY SUB - REGISTRAR. HE HAS FURTHER NOTICED THAT SECOND PROPERTY AT PLOT NO. 13 OF SURVEY NO. 113 APPROXIMATELY 195 SQ. METER WAS SHOWN AS PURCHASED FOR RS. 19,500/ - ON 13 TH JULY, 1990. HOWEVER, ON SCRUTINY OF THE DOCUMENT IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE SECOND PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF SHRI KIRITKUMAR PATEL AND NOWHERE ON THE DOCUMENT THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS MENTIONED AS PURCHASER OF THE LAND. ON 2 ND DEC, 2008 BOTH THESE PROPERTIES WERE SOLD TO SHRI DIVYESH DINESHKUAMR JOSHI OF BARODA FOR RS. 18 LACS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE SELLER OF BOTH THESE PROPERTY WAS SHRI KIRITKUMAR PATEL OF HIMMATNAGAR AS PER DOCUMENT REGISTERED WITH THE SUB - REGISTRAR OF HIMMATNAGAR. IN SPITE OF GIVING A NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES, THE ASSESSEE HA S FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY WITH RELEVANT EVIDENCES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT ON VERIFICATION OF THE PURCHASE DOCUMENT FILED, IT WAS SEEN THAT THE PROPERTIES AT PLOT NO. 12 OF SURVEY NO. 113 WAS PURCHASED FROM SHRI KIRITKUMAR PATEL ON 30 TH MAY, 1994 FOR RS. 25000/ - ON A PLAIN PAPER AND DOCUMENT WAS NOT REGISTERED WITH ANY SUB - REGISTRAR AND THE SECOND PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY SHRI KIRITKUMAR PATEL OF HIMMATNAGAR AND NOWHERE IN THE DOCUMENT THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS MENTIONED AS PURCHASER OF THE LAND. NONE OF THE PROPERTIES WAS PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE .THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED RELEVANT EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTIES WERE BELONGED TO HIM. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN WHY NOT THE CAPITAL GAIN EXEMPTION SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED AND ENTIRE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY HIM SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE HAS RESPONDED BY STATING THAT O NE PLOT WAS PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF SHRI RAMANLAL SHANGHVI ON HIS BEHALF. AND THE OTHER PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY SHRI KIRITKUMAR PATEL ON HIS BEHALF ON 13 TH JULY, 1990 FOR RS. 19,500/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STATED THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSES SEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING REASONS: - A. THE FIRST DOCUMENT MADE / ENTERED BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND SHRI KIRTIKUMAR KHODABHAI PATEL IS NOT REGISTERED IN ANY OF THE GOVT. DEPARTMENT / AGENCIES. IT IS MADE ON A PLAIN PAPER WHICH HAS NO LEGAL AUTHENTICITY AND WEIGHT AGE. B. NO PURCHASER OF LAND WOULD WAIT FOR ALMOST 5 YEARS TO MAKE A REGISTERED DOCUMENT OF THE PROPERTY PURCHASED BY HIM JUST FOR THE REASONS THAT HE WANTED TO PURCHASE THE ADJOINING LAND (PLOT). C. THE ADJOINING LAND (PLOT) WAS OW NED BY OTHER PARTY THAT IS BY SHRI RAMANLAL ZAVERI. IF AT ALL THE ADJOINING LAND WAS OWNED BY SHRI KIRTIKUMAR PATEL THEN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN REASONABLE, RATIONALE AND JUSTIFIED TO WAIT FOR SUCH A LONG PERIOD OF TIME IN MAKING THE DOCUMENT AND TRANSFERRING T HE PURCHASED PROPERTY IN THE ASSESSEE'S NAME. D. THE ADJOINING LAND IS PURCHASED BY SHRI KIRTIKUMAR KHODABHAI PATEL, THOUGH IT IS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HE WAS NEGOTIATING FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND. IF AT ALL THE LAND WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE FRO M SHRI RAMANLAL THEN THE PURCHASE DOCUMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN \ MADE BETWEEN THE ASSESSES AND SHRI RAMANLAL ZAVERI. THERE WAS NO NEED TO MAKE A DOCUMENT BETWEEN KIRTIKUMAR PATEL AND RAMANLAL ZAVERI. E. WHEN THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT WAS EXECUTED BETWEEN SHRI KIR TIKUMAR PATEL AND SHRI RAMANLAL ZAVERI, FOR THE ADJOINING SECOND PLOT, ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE EXECUTED THE PURCHASE DOCUMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND BY HIM FROM KIRTKUMAR PATEL ON 30/5/1984. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S. 54EC(1)(B) OF THE ACT AND ASSESSED THE INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 4. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - 4.3 DECISION: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT, IN THE STATEMENT OF INCOME FILED WITH THE RETURN, HAD CLAIMED LONG - TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 18 LA KH ON SALE OF PLOTS AND HAD ALSO CLAIMED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54EC(1)(B). THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 21,243/ - WAS OFFERED TO TAX. THE AO AFTER EXAMINING THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS, CAME TO CONCLUSION THAT SINCE THE PROPERTIES WHICH HAVE BEEN SOLD WERE NOT OWNED BY THE APPELLANT, HE WAS NOT ENTITLED FOR ANY EXEMPTION AND TREATED THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED AS INCOME FROM M.A. NO. 310/AHD/2018 (IN I.T.A NO. 201 /AHD/20 14 ) A.Y. 2009 - 10 PAGE NO GANDALAL BECHARBHAI PATEL VS. IT O 4 OTHER SOURCES. THE APPELLANT ON THE OTHER HAND HAS SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE PROPERTIES WERE NOT REGISTERED IN HIS NAME BUT HE WAS THE FACTUAL OWNER AND HAS RECEIVED THE CONSIDERATION FROM THE BUYER AND ACCORDINGLY CLAIM OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS WELL AS EXEMPTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED. THE FACTS SHOW THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT HE PURCHASED ONE PROPERTY AT PLOT NUMBER 12 OF S URVEY NUMBER 113 FROM SHRI KIRIT KUMAR KHODABHAI PATEL ON 30/05/1984 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 25,000 UNDER SALE % AGREEMENT. THE SALE DOCUMENT WAS NOT REGISTERED BUT THE AGREEMENT WAS SIGNED ON A STAMP PAPER OF RS. 10. THE SECOND PROPERTY OF PLOT NUMBER 13 SURVEY NUMBER 113 WAS PURCHASED FOR RS. 19,500/ - ON 13/07/1990. THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN PURCHASED THROUGH A REGISTERED DOCUMENT BUT THE OWNER OR THE BUYER OF THE PROPERTY AS PER THE DOCUMENTS WAS SHRI KIRIT KUMAR KHODABHAI PATEL. FURTHER IN THIS PURCHASE DEED THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT AS THE PURCHASER. IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION FOR BOTH THE PLOTS WAS IN CASH. THE ABOVE PLOTS WERE SOLD TO SHRI DIVYESH DINESH KUMAR JOSHI FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 18 LAKH. AS PER THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT THE SELLER OF THE PLOTS WAS SHRI KIRIT KUMAR KHODABHAI PATEL AND THE DOCUMENT WAS REGISTERED WITH SUB REGISTRAR HIMMATNAGAR. ANOTHER POINT WHICH IS ALSO RELEVANT AND WORTH NOTING IS THAT IN THE SALE OF THE PLOTS DATED 29/1 1/2008 IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS ORIGINAL OWNER OF THE LAND AND THE POSSESSION OF PLOTS HAS BEEN HANDED OVER BY HIM TO THE BUYER ON PAYMENT OF A CHEQUE OF RS. 18 LAKH. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS, THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AN D THE CLEAR FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE AO, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE APPELLANT HAS NEVER OWNED THESE PLOTS. THE FIRST PLOT WAS ALLEGEDLY PURCHASED BY AN AGREEMENT ON A STAMP PAPER OF RS. 10 WAS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN PURCHASED FOR A CASH CONSIDERATION FOR WHICH THERE IS NO CONTEMPORARY EVIDENCE. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT TO SHOW THAT THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY UNDER SECTION 53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT. THE OTHER PLOT WHICH HAS ALLEGEDLY BEEN SOLD BY APPELLANT IS ALSO CLEARLY IN THE NAME OF SHRI KIRIT KUMR KODABHAI PATEL AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE PLOT WAS OWNED BY THE APPELLANT OR THE PAYMENT, WHICH WAS IN CASH, WAS MADE B Y THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT IS CLAIMING CERTAIN FACTS WHICH WERE IN HIS EXCLUSIVE KNOWLEDGE WITHOUT ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OR ANY 'CONTEMPORARY PROOF. I AM IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE AO IN PARA - 6.2, 6.3, 6.4 AND 6.5 OF THE A SSESSMENT ORDER. THE FINDINGS OF THE AO ARE VERY CLEAR AND THERE IS NO NEED TO REPEAT THE SAME. THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN SOLD, HAVE BEEN BOUGHT MANY YEARS BACK AND HAD IT BEEN ACTUALLY OWNED BY THE APPELLANT, THERE MUST HAVE BEEN SOME E VIDENCE SUCH AS MUNICIPAL RECORD OR ELECTRICITY CONNECTION ETC. TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PROPERTY WAS ACTUALLY OWNED BY THE APPELLANT. THE MENTION OF THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT IN THE SALE DEED STATING THAT HE WAS ACTUAL OWNER IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE AS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WAS SHRI KIRIT KUMAR KHODABHAI PATEL AND THE BUYER WAS NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE OTHER FACTS WHICH ARE NOT RELEVANT THE BUYER GOT THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY AND MADE THE PAYMENT. THE REGISTRAR ALSO IS NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE OTHER NARRAT IONS IN THE SALE DEED HE IS ONLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE OWNER OF THE PLOT, THE SALE CONSIDERATION AND THE STAMP DUTY WHICH IS TO BE COLLECTED ON THE TRANSACTION. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE ACTION OF THE AO IN ASSES SING THE INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IS UPHELD. THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. M.A. NO. 310/AHD/2018 (IN I.T.A NO. 201 /AHD/20 14 ) A.Y. 2009 - 10 PAGE NO GANDALAL BECHARBHAI PATEL VS. IT O 5 4. THE FINDING AND THE DECISION OF THE ITAT BENCH IN THE CASE OF THE ASS ESEE IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD CAREFULLY. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S. 54EC(1)(B) OF THE ACT CLAIMING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF PLOT OF LAND. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS DISCERNED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE PLOT NO. 12 WHICH WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TO BE PURCHASED ON 30 TH MAY, 1984 FOR RS. 25,000/ - WAS NOT SUPPORTED WITH PROPER REGISTERED AGREEMENT. REGARDING OWNERSHIP OF PLOT NO. 13, THE PLOT OF LAND WAS REGISTERED WITH THE NAME OF SHRI KIRITKUM AR PATEL AND ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT THIS PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY SHRI KIRITKUMAR ON HIS BEHALF AND ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS OWNERSHIP WITH ANY DOCUMENT REGISTERED WITH THE SUB - REGISTRAR. IN SPITE OF GIVING A NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES , THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE OWNERSHIP OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WITH REGISTERED DOCUMENT. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE HIS CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP WITH RECOGNIZED DOCUMENT AS REQUIRED IN THE CASE OF PURCHASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. WE OBSERVE THA T A NY OF THE RIGHT RELATING TO IMMOVABLE PROPERTY , BE IT A SALE, EXCHANGE OR RELINQUISHMENT OR EXTINGUISHMENT OF ANY RIGHTS OR COMPULSORY ACQUISITION RELATE TO CAN BE TRANSFERRED SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN REGISTRATION ACT, 1908. SECTION 17 OF THE INDIAN REGISTRATION ACT LAYS DOWN VERY CLEARLY THAT THE DOCUMENTS WHICH PURPORTS OR OPERATES TO CREATE, DECLARE, ASSIGN, LIMIT OR EXTINGUISH, WHETHER IN THE PRESENT OR IN FUTURE, ANY RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST, WHETHER VESTED OR CONTINGENT, TO OR IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY SHALL BE REGISTERED. WE DO NOT FIND ANY SUBSTANCE IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HOW THE AFORESAID PROPERTIES UNDER THE REGISTERED OWNERSHIP OF OTHER PERSONS CAN BE CONSIDERED AS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE HIS CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP WITH RECOGNIZED DOCUMENT AS REQUIRED IN THE CASE OF PURCHASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER OWNED THESE PLOTS. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE PLOT WAS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSE E IS CLAIMING CERTAIN FACTS WHICH WERE IN HIS EXCLUSIVE KNOWLEDGE WITHOUT ANY RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS AND FINDINGS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 5. AS PER PARA 6 OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT VIDE ITA NO. 201/AHD/2014 CONTENTIONS OF BOTH SIDES AND MATERIAL ON RECORD WERE CONSIDERED BY THE ITAT CO - ORDINATE BENCH WHILE ADJUDICATING THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. ON PERUS AL OF THE ABOVE STATED MATERIAL FACTS & FINDINGS ELABORATED IN THE ORDER OF THE ITAT WE FIND THAT THE DETAIL REASONS AND FACTS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH ADDITIONS &DISALLOWANCE SUSTAINED WERE DULY CONSIDERED BEFORE ARRIVING AT THE CONCLUSION. I T IS ALSO PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT THE POWER OF RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT CAN BE EXERCISED ONLY WHEN THE MISTAKE WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED IS AN OBVIOUS PATENT MISTAKE, WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AND NOT A MISTAKE WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE ESTABLISHED BY ARGUMENTS AND LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS ON M.A. NO. 310/AHD/2018 (IN I.T.A NO. 201 /AHD/20 14 ) A.Y. 2009 - 10 PAGE NO GANDALAL BECHARBHAI PATEL VS. IT O 6 WHICH THERE MAY CONCEIVABLY BE TWO OPINIONS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILED FINDINGS OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, WE DO NOT F IND ANY MERIT IN THE MISC. APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 6 . IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 03 - 04 - 201 9 SD/ - SD/ - ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ( AMARJ IT SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 03 /04 /2019 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,