Tribunal rules on tax assessment year; rejects acquisition date contention; dismisses rectification request

The Tribunal upheld the applicability of the amended provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, ruling that the "Agreement for Sale" date, falling within the assessment year 2015-16, was relevant for tax purposes. It rejected the contention that the "Letter of Allotment" date should be considered the acquisition date, citing precedents that property transfer occurs upon execution of the registered document. The Tribunal also affirmed its lack of authority to review its decisions under Section 254(2), dismissing the applicant's request for rectification due to the absence of an obvious mistake. The Miscellaneous Application was thus dismissed on 25/11/2019.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of pre-amended vs. amended provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Consideration of the date of the "Letter of Allotment" vs. the "Agreement for Sale" for tax purposes.
3. Tribunal's power to review its own order under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Pre-amended vs. Amended Provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b):
The applicant argued that the pre-amended provision of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) should be considered, as the immovable property was not purchased without consideration. They contended that the provisions of the un-amended Act should apply because the letter of allotment was issued on 27.04.2012, before the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2013, which took effect from 01.04.2014. The Tribunal, however, decided the case based on the amended provisions, specifically Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii), which applies to transactions where the consideration is less than the stamp duty value by an amount exceeding Rs. 50,000. The Tribunal held that the amended provision was applicable as the "Agreement for Sale" was dated 10.09.2014, falling within the assessment year 2015-16.

2. Consideration of the Date of the "Letter of Allotment" vs. the "Agreement for Sale":
The applicant contended that the "Letter of Allotment" dated 27.04.2012 should be considered the date of acquisition of the property, arguing that it formalized the transaction. They cited the case of Pr. CIT v. Vembu Vaidyanathan, where the date of allotment was considered the date of acquisition. However, the Tribunal distinguished this case, stating that in the instant appeal, the issue was not the allotment in a construction scheme promised by the builder. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court judgments in Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT and CIT v. Podar Cements Pvt. Ltd., which held that the transfer of immovable property occurs on the date of execution of the registered document, not the date of allotment or possession. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the "Agreement for Sale" dated 10.09.2014 was the relevant date for tax purposes.

3. Tribunal's Power to Review Its Own Order Under Section 254(2):
The applicant sought rectification of the Tribunal's order, arguing that there were mistakes apparent from the record. They claimed that the Tribunal did not consider certain decisions and facts presented during the hearing. However, the Tribunal emphasized that it does not have the power to review its own decisions unless permitted by statute. The Tribunal cited various judgments, including T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros., to support the view that a mistake apparent from the record must be obvious and not subject to debate. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not pointed out any such mistake and was essentially seeking a review of the order, which is not permissible under Section 254(2).

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application, stating that there was no mistake apparent from the record. The decision was based on the Supreme Court judgments and the provisions of the amended Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii). The Tribunal reiterated that it does not possess the power to review its own decisions under Section 254(2) and that the applicant's request was beyond the scope of rectification. The order was pronounced in the open court on 25/11/2019.

---