9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sation qua their exact share of 12% and 11% (supra) despite the alleged revenue entries having gone against them. Nor has he placed on record the assessee s corresponding compensation applications / petitions filed by all these assessees before the land acquisition authorities. This act only gives rise to our adverse inference against them. We thus are of the view that the mere fact that some stray revenue entries have gone against the assessees or no sale deed had been executed in their favour would not amount to them having not actually received the land in issue once they have received the corresponding exact compensation of their respective shares under the land acquisition law. Faced with the situation, we find merit in the Revenue s contentions that the Assessing Officer had rightly invoked sec.56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act in the given facts and circumstances before us. The CIT(A) s findings treating the agreement dt 12.08.1997 in absence of any corroborative evidence stand reversed. Applicability of first and second proviso to sec.56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act that in case the dates of sale deed and date of agreement are not the same, stamp value as on the date of latter s d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peals for assessment year 2016-17 involves three assessees S/Shri Kanayalal Chetandas Manwani, Dinesh and Vinod Kanayalal Manwani. These three assessees as many appeals ITA.Nos.2066 to 2068/PUN./2019 with Revenue s and cross appeals ITA Nos.15, 16 and 14/PUN/2020 arise against the CIT(A)-1, Nashik's separate orders, all dated 15.10.2019, passed in case nos. NSK/CIT(A)-1/681/2018-19, NSK/CIT(A)-1/677/2018-19 and NSK/CIT(A)-1/675/2018-19 [taxpayer-wise], respectively, involving proceedings us/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ). 2. Heard all these three assessees represented by Shri Sanket Joshi (AR) and the department through Shri M.G. Jasnani (DR). Case files perused. 3. We notice during the course of hearing that the sole substantive issue which arises for our apt adjudication in all these six cross appeals is that of correctness of the CIT(A)'s action partly upholding the Assessing Officer s corresponding findings making sec.56(2)(vii)(b) addition(s) of Rs.2,29,67,640/- and Rs.2,10,53,670/- each, assessee wise, respectively, as per the following detailed discussion : These CIT(A)'s foregoing detailed findings partly upholding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has taken pains to refer to not only sec.2(47)(v) r.w.s.56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act but also he invited our attention to the corresponding revenue records that these taxpayers have nowhere been granted exclusive right, title or possession over the said land. And that they had entered into the corresponding agreement with the seller(s) i.e. M/s. Kale family on 12.08.1997 which was regularized by the stamp authorities as on 06.02.2016 in the relevant previous year, the consequential exclusive share never devolved on them so as to attract the statutory provision in issue. Mr. Joshi, inter alia, submitted that these assessees had in fact executed the purchase agreement way back on 12.08.1997 followed by un-registered possession receipt on 25.01.2021, payment of additional compensation on 04.10.2014, unregistered final payment receipt [Bharna Pavati] dated 09.09.2015, their application before the Collector, stamps seeking registration of the foregoing agreement on 27.01.2016 and the final decision by him u/secs.33 with 39 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958; respectively. He further stated that detailing of all these facts forms sufficient material to hold that the land in question was never a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... what the learned stamp collector has done his duty is to impound the aforesaid agreement and compound the same after recovering the corresponding stamp duty. We thus are of the view that provisions of income tax would be deemed to have been having overriding effect on the proceedings undertaken under Bombay Stamp Act so far as a detailed inquiry regarding veracity of the aforesaid agreement is concerned. 5.4. There is one more clinching aspect of the matter regarding the applicability of The Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013 . A combined perusal of secs. 61 and 63 thereof suggests that all proceedings before the prescribed authority(ies) are judicial proceedings wherein jurisdiction of a civil court is also barred. Learned counsel could not dispute in light of these clinching provisions that once the three taxpayers before us had received the statutory compensation of the land strictly to the extent of their respective share acquired by the National Highways Authority of India NHAI as per the above statute, they can very well be presumed to have also received the corresponding right or title in the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08.1997 or their possession in 2001 (supra), the clinching onus herein of the impugned advance payment also remains undischarged. We accordingly reject assessees instant arguments so far as their case drawing support from the agreement date 12.08.1997 or possession in 2001, is concerned. We find part merit in learned counsel s arguments at the same time that these assessees has indeed made payment of the alleged additional compensation as well as sale price on 04.10.2014 which has not been found to have been factually disputed even on 09.09.2015 (Bharna Pavati) as well as 06.02.2016 [registration of the alleged agreement dated 12.08.1997], respectively. This is also not the Revenue s case that these assessees or their co-vendees had not made the said payments as on 04.10.2014 by way of compensation of Rs.42 lakhs by prescribed mode. Faced with the situation, we direct the learned Assessing Officer to adopt stamp price of the land in issue in S.No.883/1/1, Nashik as on 04.10.2014 as the actual sale price in light of sec.56(2)(vii)(b) read with 1st and 2nd proviso therein than taking the fair market value as per the ready reckoner in issue (supra) as on 06.02.2016 and calculate th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
