9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The main issue in this case is whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and confirming the directions to give effect to the application under section 154 moved by the assessee. The case involves the interpretation of the definition of "transfer" u/s 2(47) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Details of the Judgment: Assessment Year 1978-79: The assessee, a private limited company, filed its return of income for the assessment year 1978-79, disclosing an income of Rs. 96,280. The Income-tax Officer assessed the income at Rs. 2,93,339, including an amount of Rs. 1,91,718 under the head "Capital gains" arising from the sale of two flats. The assessee filed an application u/s 154 of the Act, claiming a mistake apparent from the record as the sale agreement did not materialize. The Income-tax Officer rejected the application, leading to subsequent appeals. First Round of Appeals: The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) rejected the appeal of the assessee, who then approached the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal held that there was no transfer of the flats, setting aside the previous orders and directing the Assessing Officer to reevaluate the assessability of capital gains based on the documents provided. Second Round of Appeals: The Assessing Officer again held that the income was assessable, but the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) disagreed, stating there was no transfer as per section 2(47) of the Act. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld this decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and confirming the action to give effect to the application u/s 154 by the assessee. Court's Decision: The Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, stating that the issue regarding the applicability of section 154 does not survive as per the final order of the Tribunal. The Court emphasized that the amendments in section 2(47) were substantive and clarified that the doctrine of part performance under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act does not automatically constitute a transfer as defined in the Income-tax Act. Conclusion: The Court held that no referable question of law arose for consideration, and therefore, the petition was dismissed. This judgment clarifies the interpretation of the term "transfer" u/s 2(47) of the Income-tax Act in the context of capital gains arising from property transactions, emphasizing the need for a substantive transfer to trigger tax implications.
|
