2021 (9) TMI 285 - AT - Income Tax

Long term capital gain addition - valid transfer u/s.2(47)(v) - As argued transfer of the relevant capital asset by way of sale deed dt.20-04-2009 in issue was indeed a sham one in light of the alleged Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dt.20-04-2009 and re-conveyance deed dt.18-05-2009; respectively - HELD THAT - We find no reason to express our concurrence with this taxpayer s stand. This is for the reason that he has already executed the impugned registered sale deed; treated as a valid transfer u/s.2(47)(v) of the Act which is deemed to have superseded all the oral as well as un-registered documents between the vendor and the vendee; as the case may be. And also that whatever are the documents sought to be filed by way of additional evidence, the same only contain pleadings before the respective civil and criminal courts (supra) which are yet to attain finality. We are unable to treat the assessee or his family members pleadings or evidence therein as forming the sole basis so afar as assessment of his impugned capital gains is concerned. We wish to refer to hon'ble apex court s decision in CIT Vs. Balbir Singh Maini 2017 (10) TMI 323 - SUPREME COURT rejecting the department s pela seeking to invoke a transfer in absence of registered document, thereby squarely covering the issue so far as the facts herein are involved as this assessee had not only appeared before the registration authority claiming therein that he had indeed transferred peaceful and vacant possession of the relevant capital asset but also received the entire corresponding sale consideration. Any prior or subsequent document therein to, oral as well as an unregistered one ought to be taken as superseded by the foregoing registered transfer document in issue. We therefore quote hon'ble apex court s yet another decision CIT Vs. K.Y. Pilliah 1966 (10) TMI 35 - SUPREME COURT to express our concurrence with the CIT(A) s detailed discussion under challenge. The assessee s strong endeavour to rely on the foregoing litigation (supra) as well as evidence deserves to be declined in light of his registered sale deed dt.20-04-2009. We accordingly uphold the impugned long term capital gain addition in assessee s hands. All the assessee s applications/petitions seeking to admit additional grounds and evidence shall be deemed to have been disposed-of in light of our foregoing detailed discussion.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the sale deed and whether it constitutes a "transfer" under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Assessment of long-term capital gains on the alleged transfer of property.
3. Admissibility and relevance of additional evidence and documents submitted by the assessee.
4. Role and impact of unregistered agreements (Memorandum of Understanding and Agreement of Reconveyance) on the transaction.
5. Legal implications of possession and rental income on the nature of the transaction.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Sale Deed and Whether it Constitutes a "Transfer" Under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The primary issue revolves around whether the sale deed dated 20-04-2009 constitutes a valid transfer under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee argued that the transaction was a sham meant solely for obtaining a loan and did not involve an actual transfer of property. The document stated that consideration had been received and possession handed over to the purchaser. The tribunal held that the registered sale deed is a valid document indicating a transfer, thereby giving rise to capital gains.

2. Assessment of Long-Term Capital Gains on the Alleged Transfer of Property:
The assessee's main contention was that the transaction should not be considered a transfer resulting in capital gains. The tribunal, however, upheld the Assessing Officer's (AO) decision that the sale deed constituted a valid transfer, leading to the assessment of long-term capital gains. The AO's action in assessing the capital gains was confirmed, dismissing the assessee's appeal on this ground.

3. Admissibility and Relevance of Additional Evidence and Documents Submitted by the Assessee:
The assessee submitted additional evidence, including a rental agreement, bank statements, and confirmation from M/s. Pride India (M) Pvt. Ltd., to substantiate that the sale deed was a sham. The tribunal found no reason to accept these documents as they were either unregistered or merely pleadings before civil and criminal courts, which had not attained finality. The tribunal emphasized that the registered sale deed superseded any oral or unregistered documents.

4. Role and Impact of Unregistered Agreements (Memorandum of Understanding and Agreement of Reconveyance) on the Transaction:
The assessee relied on an unregistered Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 16-04-2009 and an Agreement of Reconveyance dated 18-05-2009 to argue that the sale deed was conditional and not a genuine transfer. The tribunal noted that these documents were unregistered and could not be relied upon to alter the nature of the registered sale deed. The tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. Balbir Singh Maini, which rejected the invocation of a transfer in the absence of a registered document.

5. Legal Implications of Possession and Rental Income on the Nature of the Transaction:
The assessee claimed to still be in possession of the property and receiving rent from it, which was shown as income in his tax returns. The tribunal held that possession and rental income, dependent on later understanding, could not change the character of the transaction already entered into by the assessee with the purchaser. The tribunal concluded that the registered sale deed indicated a transfer, and the subsequent possession and rental income did not negate the capital gains arising from the transaction.

Conclusion:
The tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, upholding the AO's assessment of long-term capital gains based on the registered sale deed. The tribunal found no merit in the additional evidence and unregistered agreements presented by the assessee, emphasizing that the registered sale deed constituted a valid transfer under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.