Gujarat High Court
Rajendra Kantilal Patel vs Income Tax Officer on 15 February, 2017
Bench: M.R. Shah, B.N. Karia
C/SCA/21609/2016 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21609 of 2016
TO
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21610 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH sd/
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA sd/
=========================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see NO
the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the NO
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as NO
to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
order made thereunder ?
=============================================
RAJENDRA KANTILAL PATEL....Petitioner(s)
Versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER....Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance:
MR MANISH J SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR SUDHIR M MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
Date : 15/02/2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1.0. As common question of law and facts arise in both these petitions, however with respect to different assessee, both these petitions are decided and disposed of together by this common judgment and order.
Page 1 of 15
HC-NIC Page 1 of 15 Created On Sun Aug 13 15:12:36 IST 2017
C/SCA/21609/2016 JUDGMENT
2.0. Special Civil Application No. 21609 of 2016 has been preferred by the petitioner assessee Shri Rajendrakumar Kantilal Patel for appropriate writ, direction and order to quash and set aside the impugned notice dated 23.03.2016 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by which, the Assessing Officer has sought to reopen the assessment for AY 200910 alleging inter alia that income chargeable to tax for AY 200910 has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
2.1. Special Civil Application No. 21610 of 2016 has been preferred by the petitioner assessee Shri Paras Natvarlal Patel for appropriate writ, direction and order to quash and set aside the impugned notice dated 23.03.2016 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by which, the Assessing Officer has sought to reopen the assessment for AY 200910 alleging inter alia that income chargeable to tax for AY 200910 has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
3.0. For the sake of convenience, the facts of Special Civil Application No. 21609 of 2016 are narrated, which are as under:
3.1. That the petitionerassessee filed return of income on 22.09.2009 showing Short Term Capital Gain of Rs.3,52,415/. The said capital gain was computed by deducting cost of acquisition at Rs.
1,60,085/ from the sale price of Rs. 5,12,500/. The return was accepted under Section 143(1) of the Act. That the above computation of Short Term Capital Gain was arising from the sale of one half share in the land situated at Village Vankala, revenue survey no. 41, block no. 49 A admeasuring 6970 sq mtr for total consideration of Rs.10,25,000/. That thereafter, the respondent AO has issued the impugned notice Page 2 of 15 HC-NIC Page 2 of 15 Created On Sun Aug 13 15:12:36 IST 2017 C/SCA/21609/2016 JUDGMENT dated 23.03.2016 under Section 148 of the Act stating that he had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax for AY 200910 has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. That at the request of assessee, AO has furnished the reasons recorded to reopen the assessment for AY 200910, which read as under:
"In this case assessee has filed his return of income for AY 200910 on 22.02.2009 at Rs.5,30,150/ On the basis of records available with this office and information received from DCIT, Central Circle4, Surat it is noticed/unearthed that:
1.Assessee along with one other person has sold a land situated at Village - Vankala, RS No.41, Block No.49A, Dist. Surat at a sale consideration of Rs.10,46,000/. The said land was purchased by Shri Popat H. Kakadia, Father of Shri Sharad P. Kakadia.
2.The following information/documents provided by the DCIT, Central Circle4, Surat which was gathered during the search action u/s. 132 of the I.T.Act, 1961 on 28.11.2013 in 'Vaishno Devi Group' of Surat. These information/documents were analysed as under:
A.Document marked as Page No.25 of AnnexureA7 found and seized from the residence of Shri Rajesh Vaghani, one of the partners of the firm M/s. S.R. Corporation: This is a copy of 'Saudha Chitty' dated 12.03.2008 entered into between Shri Alpesh G. Kotadia and Shri Vinod S Ravani as sellers and Shri Sharad P. Kakadia & Shri Rajesh Vaghani as buyers for purchase of land situated at Village Vankala, Block No.49A, Dist. Surat for consideration @ 6,201/ per Sq. Yard. The said land was having area of 30311 Sq. Yard.
This means total sale consideration for above land according to above sauda Chitty comes to Rs.18,79,58,511/ (6201 x 30311). Further Shri Sharad P. Kakadia who appeared as one of the purchasers of the above stated property in sauda Chhitthi is the father of real purchaser (as per registered deed) Shri Popat H. Kakadia.
B. Document marked as Page Nos. 11 and 12 and Marked Page 3 of 15 HC-NIC Page 3 of 15 Created On Sun Aug 13 15:12:36 IST 2017 C/SCA/21609/2016 JUDGMENT as Annexure - A2 found and seized from same premises:
These two pages are "provisional" P&L Account of M/s. S.R. Corporation. On perusal of the provisional Profit & Loss Account, it is noticed that the major entry in the debit side is 'Land Purchase' of Rs.18,79,58,511/ which matched with the amount of above stated sauda Chhitthi.
C.Statement of Shri Rajesh Vaghani, one of the Key person of Vaishno devi Group: On perusal of statement it is noticed that Shri Rajesh Vaghani was when specifically asked in Question no.8 to explain the debit entry of 'Land Purchase' of Rs.18,79,58,511/ in the provisional P&L Account of M/s. S.R. Corporation, he stated that this entry pertains to the land brought by one of the partners of the firm Shri Popatbhai H. Kakadia as his capital in the firm M/s. S.R. Corporation. It was further stated that Shri Popatbhai H. Kakadia has purchased this land from (1) Shri Chintanbhai Patel, (2) Shri Rajendra Kumar Kantilal Patel and (3) Shri Prakashbhai Vallabhbhai Sutaria.
In view of the facts stated above it is clear that one of the partner of M/s. S.R. Corporation, Shri Popatbhai H. Kakadia has introduced the land at Rs.18,79,58,511/ in the firm. The details of land are as under:
Sr Agreement Area Name of the Name of the Amount of
. No. Seller Purchaser consideratio
n
1 SRT/1/ATV/1 14397.328 Shri Shri Popat Rs.30,09,50
1509/2008 Sq. Yards Chintanbhai Harjibhai 0
Jadavbhai Patel Kakadia
2 SRT/1/ATV/1 8336.051 Shri Rajendra Shri Popat Rs.10,46,00
3004/2008 Sq. Yards Kumar Kantilal Harjibhai 0
Patel & Shri Kakadia
Paraskumar
Natwarlal Patel
3 SRT/1/ATV/1 7577.793 Shri Shri Popat Rs.15,84,00
3007/2008 Sq. Yards Prakashbhai Haribhai 0
Vallabhbhai Kakadia
Sutaria
TOTAL 30311 SY Rs.56,39,50
0
From the perusal of above table and sauda chhitthi Page 4 of 15 HC-NIC Page 4 of 15 Created On Sun Aug 13 15:12:36 IST 2017 C/SCA/21609/2016 JUDGMENT mentioned at para2 above, it is clear that Shri Paraskumar Natvarlal Patel along with Rajendrakumar Kantilal Patel has sold land having area of 8336.051 Sq. Yrd as mention at Sr. No.2 in table and registered deed was executed at Rs.10,46,000/ only. As per the seized material/sauda chhitthi and discussion made above it is established fact that actual consideration for land sold by Shri Paraskumar Natvarlal Patel along with Rajendrakumar Kantilal Patel was Rs.5,16,91,852/ (8336.051 x 6201). Therefore, it is clear that Paraskumar Natvarlal Patel along with Rajendrakumar Kantilal Patel (as deed was executed by him in the capacity of seller) has received differential amount of sale consideration i.e. Rs.5,06,45,852/ (5,16,91,852 minus 10,46,000). As assessee, Shri Rajendrakumar Kantilal Patel was having half share in the property, total escapement comes to Rs.2,53,22,926/ (being 5,06,45,852/2).
Thus, I have reason to believe that the income to the extent of Rs.2,53,22,926/ (5,06,45,852/2 : being half of the share in property) has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 200910. Therefore, notice u/s. 148 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is to be issued for the assessment year 200910."
3.2. That on receipt of the reasons recorded to reopen the assessment for AY 200910, the petitioner assessee submitted detailed objection dated 30.06.2016. It was pointed out that transfer of land was on 27.03.2008 when the sale deed was executed, and therefore, the income has arisen, if at all in AY 200809 and therefore, it has also escaped, if at all, in AY 200809 and therefore, notice under Section 148 of AY 200910 stating that income has escaped assessment for AY 2009 10 is bad in law. It was also pointed out that none of the petitioners assessee were party to sauda chittihi, upon which, reliance has been placed by the AO and on the basis of which AO has formed an opinion.
It was also pointed that none of the assessee have any connection with the purchaser or sellers in Sauda Chittihi nor has any connection with Page 5 of 15 HC-NIC Page 5 of 15 Created On Sun Aug 13 15:12:36 IST 2017 C/SCA/21609/2016 JUDGMENT the purchasers or sellers in Sauda Chittihi viz, the purchasers Shri Sharad P Kakadia and Shri Rajesh Vaghani and sellers Shri Alpesh Kotadia and Shri Vinod S Ravani. It was also pointed out that none of the assessee petitioners have any connection with the SR Corporation. Therefore, it was requested to drop the reassessment proceedings. That by order dated 22.12.2016 the AO has overruled the objection of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has preferred present Special Civil Application No. 21609 of 2016.
3.3. Similar are the facts in the case of one another assessee Shri Paras Natvarlal Patel coowner of land sold, which is subject matter of Special Civil Application No. 21610 of 2016.
4.0. Shri J.P. Shah, learned senior counsel has appeared on behalf of respective petitioners assessee and Shri Sudhir Mehta, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the revenue.
4.1. Shri J.P. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioners assessee has vehemently submitted that the impugned notice and reopening of the assessment for 200910 are absolutely bad in law.
4.2. It is vehemently submitted by Shri J.P. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioners assessee that as such there is no tangible material available with the Assessing Officer to form reasonable belief that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in the year 200910. It is submitted that formation of opinion by the Assessing Officer that income chargeable to tax in 200910 has escaped assessment is based on surmise and conjectures which cannot be the basis to reopen the assessment under Section 147 of the Act.
Page 6 of 15
HC-NIC Page 6 of 15 Created On Sun Aug 13 15:12:36 IST 2017
C/SCA/21609/2016 JUDGMENT
4.3. It is vehemently submitted by Shri J.P. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioners assessee that the Assessing Officer has materially erred in forming the opinion / belief that any amount chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in the year 200910. It is vehemently submitted by Shri J.P. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioners assessee that the petitionerassessee had executed the sale deed on 27.03.2008 getting full sale consideration and parting with possession of the land to one Shri Popatbhai Kakadia and therefore, the income has arisen in AY 200809 and escaped income, if any, has also arisen in AY 200809. It is submitted that therefore, notice under Section 148 for AY 200910 is bad in law. It is submitted that therefore, when the sale deed was executed in AY 200809 i.e. on 27.03.2008 capital gain under Section 45 of the Income Tax Act can be said to have arisen in the year the execution of such deed i.e. AY 200809. In support of his above submission, Shri Shah, learned counsel for the assessable has heavily relied upon the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Hormasji Mancharji Vaid reported in 250 ITR 542. It is submitted that therefore, the AO has materially erred in forming opinion that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in AY 2009
10. 4.4. It is vehemently submitted by Shri J.P. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioners assessee that in the case of purchaser Shri Popatbhai Kakadia has been assessed under Section 143(3) of the Act for AY 200910 and not a rupee has been added in his assessment by way of unaccounted payment in respect of purchase of the above land. It is submitted that if according to the department, said Popatbhai Kakadia has not made any unaccounted payment to two sellers, there is no question of assessing capital gain of the differential amount of Rs. 2,53,22,926/ in the hands of each one of two.
Page 7 of 15
HC-NIC Page 7 of 15 Created On Sun Aug 13 15:12:36 IST 2017
C/SCA/21609/2016 JUDGMENT
4.5. It is vehemently submitted by Shri J.P. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioners assessee that as per the affidavit in reply filed by the AO, Rajesh Vaghani who is examined on oath stated that the land sold by the two was purchased at sale consideration of Rs. 10,46,000/ only and Rs. 18,23,19,011/ was spent on conversion of agricultural land to non agricultural land and for evicting unauthorized occupants of the land. It is submitted that the entire case of the respondent is on the statement of the said Shri Rajeshbhai Vaghani. It is submitted that therefore, how can any rupee from Rs.18,23,19,011/ be added as unaccounted sale consideration received by two of the sellers petitioners.
4.6. It is vehemently submitted by Shri J.P. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioners assessee that if the sale has taken place between the petitioners sellers and Popatbhai Kakadia on 27.03.2008, how can Shri Alpesh Kotadia and Shri Vinod Ravani entered into a sauda chittihi on 12.03.2008 to Sharda Kakadia and Rajesh Vaghani of the land which Shri Alpesh Kakadia and Shri Vinod Ravani were not owning and in that case how can unaccounted capital gain arise in case of two of real sellers of the land i.e. Shri Rajendra Patel and Shri Parasbhai (petitioners).
4.7. It is submitted that therefore, there is no tangible material available with the AO to form a reasonable belief that the income chargeable to tax in the year 200910 has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act.
Making above submissions and relying upon the above decision, it is requested to allow the present petitions and to quash and set aside the impugned notices and reassessment proceeding for AY 200910.
Page 8 of 15
HC-NIC Page 8 of 15 Created On Sun Aug 13 15:12:36 IST 2017
C/SCA/21609/2016 JUDGMENT
5.0. Both these petitions are vehemently opposed by Shri Sudhir Mehta, learned counsel for the revenue.
5.1. It is vehemently submitted by Shri Sudhir Mehta, learned counsel for the revenue that after considering the material on record, more particularly, sauda chittihi dated 12.03.2008 and the statement of Shri Rajesh Vaghani at whose premises the search was conducted, the AO has formed the reasonable belief that income chargeable to tax to the extent of Rs.2,53,22,926/ has escaped assessment for AY 200910. It is submitted that therefore, the AO is justified in reopening of assessment for AY 200910.
5.2. It is vehemently submitted by Shri Sudhir Mehta, learned counsel for the revenue that as the sale deed was registered with the office of Sub Registrar on 25.07.2008 and therefore, it can be said that the transfer of land as well as sale consideration was received by the assessee in AY 200910 and therefore, AO has rightly reopened the assessment for AY 200910.
5.3. It is vehemently submitted by Shri Sudhir Mehta, learned counsel for the revenue that the sauda chittihi dated 12.03.2008 was made prior to the date of registration of the land in question by assessee i.e. 25.07.2008, which clearly proves that the assessee was in contact with the sellers i.e. Shri Vinod S Ravani and Shri Alpesh G Kotadia, whose names appear in said sauda chitthi which shows that the said land was transferred on account of payment of Rs. 18,23,19,011/ in cash. It is submitted that it is true that the said Shri Vinod Ravana and Shri Alpesh Kotadia who signed the sauda chittihi were not legal owner. It is submitted that however it is common modus operandi used in purchase and sale of land that land are transferred through middlemen Page 9 of 15 HC-NIC Page 9 of 15 Created On Sun Aug 13 15:12:36 IST 2017 C/SCA/21609/2016 JUDGMENT which facilitate the actual owners of the land to find out prospective buyers at the suitable price. It is submitted that in the present case Shri Vinod S Ravani and Shri Alpesh Kotadia were not in a capacity to transfer said land as they were not the legal owner of the said land and they just acted as a middle man to facilitate the transfer of said land to Shri Popat H Kakadia. It is submitted that Shri Shard P Kakadia who appeared as one of the purchaser of said land in the said sauda chittihi is son of actual purchaser Shri Popat H Kakadia. It is submitted that thus it is clear that Shri Vinod Ravani and Shri Alpesh Kotadia acted on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sharad P Kakadia acted on behalf of Shri Popat H Kakadia and amount mentioned in said sauda chittihi was ultimately transferred to the assessee. It is submitted that therefore, the AO is justified in forming belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the AY 200910.
5.4. It is vehemently submitted by Shri Sudhir Mehta, learned counsel for the revenue that it is found from the provisional P & L account of SR Corporation, seized during the search proceedings that Shri Popatbhai Kakadia brought the land into partnership firm showing the value of land, much more than mentioned in the sale deed. It is submitted that it is found from the provisional P & L Account of M/s. SR Corporation that major entry in the debit side is "land purchase" of Rs. 18,79,58,511/ which match with the amount mentioned in the sauda chittihi dated 12.03.2008. It is submitted that therefore, the impugned notices under Section 148 of the Act to reopen the reassessment proceedings for AY 200910 are absolutely in accordance with law. It is submitted that ample opportunity shall be given to the respective assessee at the time of framing of reassessment proceedings.
Making above submissions, it is requested to dismiss the present petitions.
Page 10 of 15
HC-NIC Page 10 of 15 Created On Sun Aug 13 15:12:36 IST 2017
C/SCA/21609/2016 JUDGMENT
6.0. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length. We have perused and considered the reasons recorded to reopen the assessment for AY 200910. We have also perused and considered the statement of Shri Rajesh Vaghani, on the basis of which, the AO has formed an opinion that in the case of assessee the income chargeable to tax for AY 200910 has escaped assessment.
6.1. From the reasons recorded to reopen the assessment for AY 200910, it appears that on basis of one sauda chittihi dated 12.03.2008 entered into between Shri Alpesh Kotadia and Shri Vinod Ravani as sellers and Shri Sharad Kakadia and Shri Rajesh Vaghani as buyers of total land of 30311 sq yards, which was seized during the search of premises of Shri Rajesh Vaghani, in which, total consideration of the above land of 30311 sq yard is stated to be at Rs. 6201/ per sq yard i.e. Rs. 18,79,58,511/ and in the provisional profit and loss account of M/s SR Corporation, in which, there is debit entry of Rs. 18,79,58,511/ for the purchase of the said land (which was also one of the seized documen), the AO has formed an opinion that the petitioners herein assessee sellers have received the sale consideration with respect to sale deed in question of Rs. 5,16,91,852/ against which, sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed is Rs. 10,46,000/ only and therefore, the balance amount i.e. Rs. 5,06,45,852/ is an unaccounted income which has escaped assessment. From the reasons recorded, it appears that the AO has also heavily relied upon the statement of Shri Rajesh Vaghani, recorded during the search, in which, according to AO he has stated that partner of firm Shri Popatbhai Kakadia has brought the land as his capital in the firm of M/s. SR Corporation and that he has introduced the land at Rs. 18,79,58,511/ in the firm. Thus, from the aforesaid material only, the AO has formed an opinion that the income chargeable to tax to the extent of Rs. 2,53,22,926/ (in case of each petitioners) has Page 11 of 15 HC-NIC Page 11 of 15 Created On Sun Aug 13 15:12:36 IST 2017 C/SCA/21609/2016 JUDGMENT escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act for AY 200910.
6.2. However, it is required to be noted that the petitioners and original owners were not party and / or signatory to the sauda chittihi dated 12.03.2008. The said sauda chittihi has been signed by one Shri Alpesh Kotadia and Shri Vinod Ravani as seller, though admittedly they were not owners. Even the said sauda chittihi dated 12.03.2008 was entered into between the aforesaid two persons Shri Alpesh Kotadia and Shri Vinod Ravani as sellers and Shri Sharad Kakadia and Shri Rajesh Vaghani as buyers, however subsequent sale deeds are executed by the petitioners as owners / sellers and one Shri Popat Kakadia on 27.03.2008. Therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid sauda chittihi, AO could not have formed the opinion / reasonable belief that the sellers have received Rs. 5,16,91,852/ as sale consideration. There is no other tangible material with the AO, by which, it can prima facie be considered that Rs. 5,16,91,852/ has been received by the sellers as sale consideration.
7.0. It is also required to be noted that Shri Rajesh Vaghani in his statement has categorically stated that land has been purchased for sale consideration of Rs. 10,46,000/ and Rs. 18,23,19,011/ was spent on conversion of total agricultural land to non agricultural land and for evicting the unauthorized occupants of the land. By that itself, it cannot be said that the said amount was received by the petitioners sellers as on money in cash and therefore, the same cannot be treated as unaccounted income in the hands of the assessee.
8.0. Now, so far as the provisional P & L Account of M/s. SR Corporation, in which, there debit entry of Rs. 18,79,58,511/ for the Page 12 of 15 HC-NIC Page 12 of 15 Created On Sun Aug 13 15:12:36 IST 2017 C/SCA/21609/2016 JUDGMENT purchase of the entire land, which according to the AO matched with the sauda chittihi and the statement of Shri Rajesh Vaghani is concerned, it is required to be noted that the said land has been purchased by Shri Popatbhai Kakadia one of the partner of M/s. SR Corporation who brought the said land as his capital. According to the statement of Shri Rajesh Vaghani, over and above Rs. 10,46,000/ paid towards sale consideration, Rs. 18,23,19,011/ was spent for converting the agricultural land to non agricultural land and for removing unauthorized occupants and therefore, in the provisional P & L account Rs 18,79,58,511/ might have been mentioned. However, by that itself, it cannot be said that the original sellers / petitioners have received any on money in cash treating the same unaccounted income in the hands of the assessee. Thus, there is no tangible material available with the AO to form the reasonable belief that Rs. 5,16,91,852/ has been received by the petitioners and / or Rs. 5,06,45,852/ has been received as on money in cash which is required to be treated as unaccounted income in the hands of the assessee. Under the circumstances, formation of the opinion that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for AY 200910 has been vitiated. There is no valid reasons and / or material with the AO to come to such conclusion.
9.0. Present matters are also required to be considered from another angle. It is required to be noted that in the present case, the sale deed has been executed by the petitioners on 27.03.2008. The sale consideration has been received by the petitioner on 27.03.2008 and the possession has also been handed over on 27.03.2008. Thus, the transfer of land has been taken place on 27.03.2008 when the sale deed has been executed. Therefore, it can be said that income has arisen in the AY 200809 and therefore, if at all any income has escaped assessment, the same can be said to be in AY 200809. By impugned notice, assessment Page 13 of 15 HC-NIC Page 13 of 15 Created On Sun Aug 13 15:12:36 IST 2017 C/SCA/21609/2016 JUDGMENT for AY 200910 is sought to be reopened on the ground that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in 200910. When, it was pointed out to AO that the transfer had taken place on 27.03.2008 and therefore, it can be said that the income has arisen in the year 200809 and therefore, there cannot be any escapement of income in the year 200910, while disposing of the objection raised by the assessee against the reasons recorded, the AO has overruled the said objection by observing that as the document was registered with the SubRegistrar on 25.07.2008 and the payment of Rs. 5,23,000/ with regard to said transfer was received by assessee vide cheque no. 193533 on 3.4.2008, the transfer of land as well as sale consideration has been received by the assessee in AY 200910 and therefore, impugned notice is valid. However, from the sale deed dated 27.03.2008, it appears that entire sale consideration has been paid vide cheque dated 27.03.208.. Even otherwise, as per the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Hormasji Mancharji Vaid (supra), the capital gain under Section 45 of the Act arises in the year of execution of deed and not when the same was registered with the office of the SubRegistrar. In the said decision, the Full Bench of this Court has observed and held as under:
"For the purpose of tax on capital gains under Section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 transfer of immovable property of value exceeding Rs. 100 is effected on the date of execution of the document of transfer and not either on the date of presentation of the document for registration or on the date on which registration of the deed is completed. The capital gains on the transfer has to be assessed to tax in the assessment year relevant to the previous year within which the date of execution of the deed of transfer falls, and not the subsequent assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the deed is registered."
9.1. Under the circumstances also, the AO has materially erred in forming the opinion that any income chargeable to tax has escaped Page 14 of 15 HC-NIC Page 14 of 15 Created On Sun Aug 13 15:12:36 IST 2017 C/SCA/21609/2016 JUDGMENT assessment for the year 200910.
9.2. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, impugned proceedings for reopening of the assessment for AY 200910 and the impugned notices cannot be sustained and same deserve to be quashed and set aside.
10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, both these petitions succeed. The impugned notice dated 23.03.2016 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act and impugned proceedings for reopening of the assessment for AY 200910 are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent in both the petitions. No costs.
sd/ (M.R. SHAH, J.) sd/ (B.N. KARIA, J.) Kaushik Page 15 of 15 HC-NIC Page 15 of 15 Created On Sun Aug 13 15:12:36 IST 2017