9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (5) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wer of attorney, we find that there is nothing in it so as to hold that possession was delivered to the purchaser. Indeed, the Tribunal has not considered this material aspect of the case and, therefore, it will be appropriate to send back the case to the Tribunal - - - - - Dated:- 7-5-2003 - Judge(s) : DIPAK MISRA., A. K. SHRIVASTAVA. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by. A.K. SHRIVASTAVA J. - This appeal has been preferred under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"), against the order dated July 29, 1999, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration: "(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated November 3,1995, held that the transfer did not take place during the assessment year since the possession of the property was not handed over. According to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Assessing Officer rested the case on the power of attorney but it was neither irrevocable and, therefore, according to the Commissioner, it could not be said that there had been a transfer in terms of section 2(47) of the Act. The Commissioner, as such, deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 18,28,565. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, an appeal was filed before the Tribunal by the Revenue which has been allowed by the impugned order setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . -For the purposes of sub-clauses (v) and (vi), 'immovable property' shall have the same meaning as in clause (d) of section 269UA." It has been submitted by Shri Nema that there is no justification in holding that there was a transfer of plot within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act during the relevant assessment year. It has been vehemently contended by him that possession was not delivered to the purchaser and, therefore, the transaction was not a transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act. Learned counsel for the assessee by inviting our attention on the various conditions of the agreement dated August 11,1990, has contended that there is no stipulation in the agreement that the possession has been handed over to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
