Capital gains transfer date follows registered conveyance and possession; late appellate evidence rejected without adequate cause.

For capital gains purposes, the transfer of immovable property was treated as occurring on the date of the registered sale deed and induction into possession, not on the earlier development agreement that only fixed construction rights, payment terms, and future obligations. The later conveyance therefore governed the timing of transfer under section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act and section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, with capital gains arising in A.Y. 2009-10. Additional evidence sought at the appellate stage was refused because no satisfactory explanation was given for its earlier non-production, and the conditions for admission under Rule 29 were not met.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the transfer of the immovable property took place on 4.2.2008 or on 11.12.2008 for the purpose of capital gains taxation; (ii) whether the additional evidence sought to be produced at the appellate stage was admissible.

Issue (i): Whether the transfer of the immovable property took place on 4.2.2008 or on 11.12.2008 for the purpose of capital gains taxation.

Analysis: The agreement dated 4.2.2008 was treated as a tri-partite development arrangement fixing construction rights, payment schedule, and future obligations, while the registered sale deed dated 11.12.2008 recorded the induction of the purchaser into possession. Applying the meaning of transfer under section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the concept of sale and delivery of possession under section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the decisive event was the later registered conveyance, not the earlier agreement.

Conclusion: The transfer took place on 11.12.2008 and the capital gains arose in A.Y. 2009-10; this issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the additional evidence sought to be produced at the appellate stage was admissible.

Analysis: The document was tendered long after the assessment and first appellate proceedings without a satisfactory explanation for non-production earlier. The requirements for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 were not satisfied, as no reasonable cause or adequate foundation was shown for late production.

Conclusion: The additional evidence was not admitted and this issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed in their entirety, and the tax addition based on transfer in A.Y. 2009-10 was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: For capital gains purposes, the date of transfer is governed by the registered conveyance and actual induction into possession where earlier arrangements are only development agreements, and additional evidence at the appellate stage is admissible only on a proper showing under Rule 29.

---