9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (2) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 with the Sub Registrar of Documents. It was, however, registered much after the valuation dates viz., on 23rd Dec., 1986 at serial No. S-314/80. It was stated before us that this is the normal time a registration takes place for properties in Bombay. 3. The total cost to the assessee being Rs. 4,03,051, was brought to assessment by the WTO. The assessee's contention, however, was that it should be valued as per the provisions of r. 1BB of WT Rules, 1957. The CWT(A) also did not agree with the claim of the assessee. He held that the conveyance deed dt. 8th Feb., 1980 between Sudarshan Chits (India) Limited and the assessee is not transferred so far and it is settled law that in case of an immovable property of the value equal to or exce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be deprived of his rights. The ld. counsel of the assessee also filed a copy of index No. II dt. 24th Dec., 1986 indicating the registration on 23rd Dec., 1986 and contended that by virtue of s. 47 of the Registration Act, the transaction has to operate from the date of conveyance, i.e., 8th Feb., 1980. The ld. departmental representative objected to the admission of this index No. II dt. 24th Dec., 1986 to be admitted as an evidence, same being an additional evidences, produced for the first time before the Tribunal. On merits the ld. departmental representative relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. We are concerned in this case with a question as to whether the property known ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 23rd Dec., 1986 it has to have operation w.e.f. 8th February 1980. Even though we find a genuine hardship to the assessee in this case, and whatever was to be done by the assessee had been done by lodging the document for registration and there was nothing more to be done by him, we find ourselves unable to accept this argument of the assessee in view of the binding decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Amarchand J. Agarwal vs. Union of India (1982) 26 CTR (Bom) 286 : (1983) 142 ITR 402 (Bom) as affirmed by the Division Bench in (1982) 31 CTR (Bom) 122 : (1983) 142 ITR 410 (Bom). In this case the Bombay High Court has after referring to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Ram Saran Lal vs. Domini Kuer AIR 1961 SC 1747 held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have application to the facts of the present case. In my judgment it is not possible to hold that the transfer is complete on the date of the execution and the registration only makes the sale complete. There is no distinction between the transfer of a title and the completion of the sale, and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court, the title passes only when the document is registered under the provisions of the Registration Act. The mere fact that such transfer operates from the date of execution is not sufficient to conclude that the title itself passes on the date of execution." 6. In view of the above discussion, we find ourselves unable to accept the contention of the assessee. The bungalow does not belong to him as there was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
