TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 69
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... allowing appeal of the assessee on the issu of income from other sources of Rs. 2,85,42,477/- u/s 56(2)(vii) of the I.T.Act, without considering the following factual and legal aspects: i) The assessee could not furnish any documentary evidence for providing that the said property was purchased by the assessee's father JN Agarwal in 1974 itself. ii) As per Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, the transfer will be completed only when full sale consideration received by the seller, property is registered in the name of purchaser and possession was given to the purchase. In the case of the assessee, the above said there conditions were not fulfilled in the year 1974 whereas the said conditions were fulfilled in the year 2014 2. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed in sum of Rs. 3,67,41,642/-. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who allowed the claim of the assessee. Therefore, the revenue has filed the present appeal before us. ISSUES NO.1 and 2: 4. Under these issues, the assessee has challenged the allowance of the claim of Rs. 2,85,42,477/- u/s 56(2)(vii) of I.T.Act. The Ld. DR has argued that the CIT(A) wrongly allowed the claim of the assessee, therefore, finding of the CIT(A) is not justifiable, hence is liable to be set aside. However, on the other hand. The Ld. AR of the assesee has strongly relied upon order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) in question. Before going further, it is necessary to advert the finding of the Ld.CIT(A). Be in question. 4. I have care....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... involved in the litigation lo drop their claims over the property. These payments were in the nature of compensation for settlement of their claims and not towards purchase consideration. The purchase consideration had already been paid by father of the Appellant to Vendors and Original Owners and Confirming Parties. All the aforesaid facts were agreed by the Vendors and Original Owners and Confirming Parties in the Conveyance Deed. It is also a fact that the property was not registered in the name of late Shri. Jagdishnarain Agarwal due to pending litigation. The said registration could have been done vide a Conveyance Deed which was entered into by the Appellant being successor of late Shri. Jagdishnarain Agarwal in the FY 2014-15 after ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers and Confirming Parties lo late Shri. Jagdishnarain Agarwal. Memorandum of recording of possession in favor of laic Shri. Jagdishnarain Agarwal. Memorandum of Family Settlement. Deed of Confirmation between the Appellant and Vendors would be unfair, unjustified and without considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. After going through the order passed by the CIT(A), we noticed that the property was purchased by Jagdish Narian Agarwal in the year 1974 after paying the full consideration. The original owners/vendors confirmed the transaction and the parties had given requisite confirmation before the district collector. They transferred the possession of the said land to Late Shri Jagdishnarian Agarwal. Orig....