Itta/501/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-V v. Sri S.venkat Reddy, (

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH ATHYDERABAD THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAAND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No. 501 of 2013 DATE: 24.10.2013 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax-V,Hyderabad. … Appellant And Sri S. Venkat Reddy,Hyderabad. … Respondent This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No. 501 of 2013 JUDGMENT:(Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be admitted on the following suggested questions of law: “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Hon’ble Tribunal (ITAT) is justified in remitting the matter to the fileof the assessing officer to examine the issue that the transfer ofproperty situated at Sanathnagar is completed in terms ofunregistered sale agreement dated 13.06.2005, whereas thepossession of property was handed over at the time ofexecution of sale deed on 25.11.2005? 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Hon’ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in adopting the marketvalue on the date of agreement of sale rather than the date ofregistration as stipulated in Section 50C of the Act? 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Hon’ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in holding that the assessing officer is required to adopt the SRO rate as on the date of transfer vide sale agreement for the purpose of determining the capital gain though it was not registered?” We have heard Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel for theappellant, and gone through the impugned judgment and order of the learnedTribunal. The learned Tribunal while analyzing the fact and taking note of thedefinition of “Transfer” as mentioned in Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has held that the market value as on the date of handing overpossession is to be treated as consideration of the property. We are of the view that the learned Tribunal has followed the correctposition of law, as the concept of “Transfer” as known under Transfer ofProperty Act read with Indian Registration Act is not the only acceptableconcept. The date of transfer under the Income Tax Act is treated to be thedate of handing over possession of the property in question as partperformance of a contract of the nature referred to in Section 53A of Transferof Property Act, 1882. In other words, the registration of the property is mereformality and transfer is deemed to have taken the moment possession of theproperty handed over to the vendee within the meaning of Section 2(47)(v) ofthe Income Tax Act. Therefore, we do not find any element of law in thisappeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. _____________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ ____________________SANJAY KUMAR, J