2022 (2) TMI 876

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... means of a notice u/s 148 of the Act. During the course of the reassessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that the transaction of sale of property was cancelled and the part of the amount earlier received was also returned by the assessee to the purchaser and hence no capital gain arose. The AO did not accept the assessee's contention by observing that sale of the house property for a sum of Rs. 26 lakhs took place vide sale deed registered and stamp duty paid on 17.04.2008. The assessee's contention that cheques amounting to Rs. 14 lakhs got dishonoured and out of the remaining amount of Rs. 12 lakhs already received by the assessee, a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs was returned and agreement to sell the property was cancelled, did not find favour with the AO in the absence of a registered cancellation deed. The AO held that the assessee concocted a story of cancellation deed in connivance with the buyer to overcome the consequences of non-declaration of capital gain in her return of income. The ld. CIT(A) echoed the assessment order. During the course of original proceedings u/s 254(1) of the Act, the assessee reiterated her submissions about the cancellation of the sale deed. The Tri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ility, took place on the date of execution of sale deed on 15.12.2007 or on the registration of sale deed on 17.4.2008. It is only if the transfer takes place on registration of sale deed that capital gain tax liability will arise in the year under consideration. Taking support from section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908, (hereinafter called 'the Registration Act'), the ld. AR submitted that transfer is considered as operative from the date of execution of sale deed and not its registration, which was countered by the ld. DR. 5. At this juncture, it would be apt to consider the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Balbir Singh Maini (2017) 398 ITR 531 (SC). In that case, the issue was about the taxability of certain amount as capital gain pursuant to joint development agreement. The AO made out a case that the transfer took place on part performance of the contract on the developer taking possession of the property and doing various acts in furtherance of the contract and hence capital gain was chargeable to tax. Per contra, the Revenue tried to build a case before the various judicial forums, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that section 2(47)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....igned by him from which the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty, and the transferee, in part performance of the contract, has taken possession of the property etc. and has done some act in furtherance of the contract, and the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract, then, notwithstanding that 'the contract though required to be registered, has not been registered' etc. in the manner prescribed therefor by the law for the time being in force, the transferor shall be debarred from enforcing against the transferee any right in respect of the property. The effect of this section was to treat the part performance of the contract, subject to the conditions given therein, as constituting transfer of immovable property notwithstanding the non-registration of the sale deed. Proviso to section 49 of the Registration Act, prior to 2001 amendment, also provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act or the TPA, to be registered may be received, inter alia, as evidence of part performance of a contract for the purposes of section 53A of the TPA. Section 2(47)(v) of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iring registration. Necessarily and as a sequitur, it follows that the mandate of section 17 of the Registration Act requiring the registration as a pre-condition for transfer, after the 2001 amendment, applies to all the clauses of section 2(47) dealing with the immovable property including the part performance of the contract under clause (v). Transfer of any immovable property by means of sale covered u/s 2(47)(i) of the Act, which even prior to the 2001 amendments also required registration, continues to remain unaltered. It will not be treated as 'transfer' unless the sale deed is registered in the same manner, as the position has become after the 2001 amendments qua the transaction of part performance of contract as per section 53A of the TPA covered under section 2(47)(v) of the Act. The contention of the ld. AR to the effect that the 2001 amendments have no bearing and the registration is not essential in the cases covered u/s 2(47)(i) of the Act, is therefore, sans merits. 9. Now I turn to contention of the ld. AR on section 47 of the Registration Act. This section with the heading 'Time from which registered document operates' provides that : 'A registered document sha....