TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 2094
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... For the Revenue : Smt.M.Narmada, CIT-DR, Shri SPG Mudaliar,DR ORDER PER BENCH : Challenging the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment years 2012-13, 2014-15, 2016-17 and 2017-18, both the Revenue and Assessee preferred these appeals. Since the facts involved in all these appeals are same, we deem it just and convenient to dispose of all these appeals by way of this common order. However, based on the nature of addition and the common issues involved, we classify these appeals into certain groups for convenient disposal. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of these appeals are that pursuant to the search operations under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") conducted in the case of M/s Goldstone Infratech Ltd and its other associated Companies on 9/11/2017 and basing on the material and enquiries pursuant thereto, notices under section 153A/153C of the Act were issued and on filing of the returns of income by the assessees, learned Assessing Officer completed the assessments by making certain additions. In appeal before the learned CIT(A), learned CIT(A) deleted certain additions against which the Revenue prefe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e involved in all these matters, namely, whether a partition of the property, allegedly held jointly by all the parties to the partition prior to the partition deed, gives rise to transfer of any right, title or interest in any piece of property that had fallen to the share of any person under the partition deed, so as to bring the same to tax. Learned CIT(A) answered this issue in favour of the assessees holding that the partition will not result in any transfer of property covered by the same. This issue will also be answered by way of a common discussion in all the appeals. 7. Lastly, we refer to the argument of the counsel on either side as to the effect of combined satisfaction recorded by the learned Assessing Officer under section 153C of the Act, if necessity arises. Now we shall proceed to deal with these aspects one after the other. ITA Nos. 296 to 301/Hyd/2021 Appeals preferred by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2016-17 8. In all these appeals, the addition involved is in respect of the property, which happens to be the subject matter in CS No. 14/1958 in respect of which the plea of the assessees is that the Hon'ble High Court held all the transacti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see's sole substantive grievance that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in making undisclosed income addition of the alleged capital gains income of Rs. 16,66,666 in the course of assessment dt. 27.12.2019 as upheld in the CIT(A)'s order, learned counsel's first and former argument is that the very sale transfer deed herein stands annulled in hon'ble jurisdictional high court's detailed judgment dt. 16.08.2018 and therefore, the impugned addition has no legs to stand. 3. The Revenue's case on the other hand is that the assessee has raised the foregoing argument for the first time before the tribunal which requires afresh factual verification. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the preceding rival submissions and find merit in both parties' stands in principle. Case records prima facie suggest that hon'ble jurisdictional high court's common detailed judgment in W.P. Nos. 11032, 11034 and 11037 of 2018 dt. 16.08.2018 hereinabove has indeed quashed the Revenue's action in issue therein. The fact also remains that whether or not the assessee's capital asset forming subject matter of transfer herein is covered u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he extent covered by the above observations of the coordinate benches and restore the issue to the file of the learned Assessing Officer to record categorical finding with respect to owning of capital asset, if any, by the assessee or not and the effect of decision of jurisdictional High Court on the ownership of the capital asset by the assessee. Grounds of these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. ITA Nos. 309, 311, 313, 314, 315 and 316/Hyd/2021) Departmental appeals for the Assessment year 2012-13 13. Brief facts relevant for this set of appeals is that one Cyprus investments Ltd claiming share in Ac. 48-00 guntas of land in survey No. 172, Hydernagar village and such rights were assigned to seven parties, namely, M/s Sai Anupama Agencies Private Limited, M/s Kirthi Anurag Investments Private Limited, M/s Jayasri Agencies Private Limited, M/s Sai Keerthi Constructions Private Limited, M/s Sai Pavan Estates Private Limited, M/s Greater Golconda estates Pvt. Ltd and M/s India Telecom Finance Corporation Ltd, who in turn executed the sale deed dated 2/1/2006 in favour of M/s PS Parthasarathi by paying registration fee on 31/12/2005. Pending registration, six out....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n'ble Apex Court it was found to be government land and never belonged to any person to transfer the same to any person; that pursuant to the findings of the Hon'ble Court the government passed a G0 stating that the subject matter of the dispute is a government land; and, that therefore, these assessees cannot transfer the same. Under the circumstances, learned CIT(A) allowed the contentions of the assessees and adjudicated the issue relating to the addition of Rs. 33,37,58,333/- in favour of the assessees. 18. Aggrieved Revenue preferred these appeals. According to the Revenue, as on the date of relinquishment deed, there was no registration and consequently there was no transfer of any rights of the releasers under the alleged sale deed dated 2/1/2006; that the sale deed that was registered at a subsequent point of time cannot override a valid and legal earlier transaction under the relinquishment deed; that relinquishment is a form of transfer under section 2(47) of the Act; and that the learned Assessing Officer was well within his jurisdiction to bring the stamp duty value of the property to tax in equal proportion in the hands of all the releasers. 19. She further s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts execution, and not from the time of its registration, unless a different intention is expressed in the document. This section essentially states that a document registered under the Registration Act, 1908, shall take effect from the time of its execution, provided it is required to be registered under the law. 23. The registration is a process that validates the document, but the operation of the document, namely, the transfer of ownership in the case of a sale deed relates back to the date of execution. It goes, therefore, without saying that a registered document operates from the time it would have commenced to operate if no registration had been required or made, and not from the time of its registration. This provision implies that the registration of a sale deed relates back to the date of its execution, provided the entire consideration has been paid for at the time of execution. 24. There is no dispute in this case that though the sale deed was registered on 20/11/2013, the sale was complete in all respects on 2/1/2006 itself and the document was presented for registration. The effect of the registration takes place from the date of sale deed itself and it does not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e registration authorities for the entire land as on 20/11/2013 in the hands of the assessees, and also in the hands of the vendee by name Sanjiva Parthasarathy. 28. When the assessee preferred the appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax observed that the assessee submitted the sale deed dated 2/1/2006 before the sub registrar on the date itself for registration, and though the registration was effected on 20/11/2013, the possession of the land was handed over and the agreed amount was paid to the assessees and, therefore, the transfer was complete in all respects on the date of the sale deed itself but not on the date of registration. Learned CIT(A) also expressed the opinion that there is no requirement of registration as per the definition of "transfer" in the Act. According to him once the part performance was complete as per section 53A of the Act, the transaction is chargeable to tax in the year of the performance taking place itself and the document is presented for registration. 29. Learned CIT(A) further observed that it is undisputed fact that the document pertains to the year 2006 and also the SRO value was taken for the year 2006 which further fortifies the said fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso. 33. On careful consideration of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that when the learned Assessing Officer does not dispute the fact of the execution of sale deed on 2/1/2006 and its presentation for registration on the day itself, it is not open for the learned Assessing Officer to say that the transfer took place in the assessment year 2014-15 but not in the assessment year 2006-07. We find it difficult to hold that the findings of the learned CIT(A) as to the conclusion of the transfer of property in the year 2006-07 suffers any illegality or irregularity. 34. Now coming to the applicability of the provisions under section 50C of the Act, a reading of the provisions under section 50C of the Act makes it clear that the unamended provision essentially required the transferor to adopt the value adopted or assessed by the Stamp Valuation Authority, where the sale consideration was less than the stamp duty value, and in case of discrepancies between the actual sale price and the stamp duty value, the latter was deemed as the full value of consideration for computing capital gains under Section 48; whereas the insertion of the words "or assessable" by way of amend....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t year 2016-17) 38. Main question involved in all these appeals is whether the partition of property amounts to transfer of any interest therein to any of the sharers. Facts giving rise to this question are that three parties including the assessees reached an out-of-court settlement by executing a partition deed dated 10/3/2016. All the assessee's are falling in one part of the parties to the partition deed and record reveals that the three parties partitioned about 47 acres of land and the 1st party comprised of eight entities got 16 acres of land thereof. The value of the entire 47 acres was determined as Rs. 159,72,00,000/- by the stamp duty authority. Learned Assessing Officer took the same and valued the 16 acres got by the 1st party of eight entities at Rs. 54,37,27,659/- and apportioned the same equally among eight entities at the rate of Rs. 6,79,65,957/- and brought it to tax holding it to be the extent of right in the property obtained by each assessee to the partition deed. 39. Assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A) and pleaded that the assessees and others were already owned and possessed the subject matter of the partition even before the partition ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CS No. 14/1958, by virtue of purchase of land from M/s Cyrus Investments Ltd and late Nawab Kazim Nawaz Jung, all the parties covered under the partition deed acquired title to the property; that after taking into consideration of the various orders passed by the various courts, M/s Cyrus Investments Ltd and Nawab Kazim Nawaz Jung were jointly entitled to all lands including the land covered by the partition deed, all the parties under the partition deed acquired the title to the extent of 47 acres in survey No.80D of Hafizpet village, which was subsequently partitioned under the deed dated 10/3/2016 vide document No. 2630/2016; and, therefore, there is no transfer of property from one party to the other party under that document, since it is a simple partition deed dividing the status of the shares of the parties pursuant to the compromise reached by them. Learned AR, therefore, submitted that the learned CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition made on this account and there are no grounds to interfere with the same on this aspect. 44. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. There does not appear to be any dispute that the subject matter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no question of transfer of assets can arise when all that happens is separation in status though the result of such severance in status is that the property hitherto held jointly is held thereafter separately by the members. 47. While endorsing the said view, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Keshavilal Lallubhai Patel AIR 1965 SC 1392, answered the question "is a partition of joint Hindu family property a transfer in the strict sense" in the negative. In Rajkumar Vs. Commissioner of Gift Tax (2014) 367 ITR 137, Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh observed that "the Supreme Court recognized the fact that a firm is not a recognized legal personality and no partner can hold any item of the assets, exclusively for himself. To put it in positive terms, each partner can be said to have held the entire assets, but to the extent of his share. Here again, the actual entitlement of the partner comes to be translated, if only the dissolution takes place, and the item of property is allotted to his share. The occasion for the member of a joint family or a co-owner or a partner to make a gift would arise only after his share is determined in the process of partition or dissolu....