Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: compromise decree is executable in D.L. Khandge,, Pune vs Income Tax Officer,, Pune on 23 December, 2020Matching Fragments
3. We have heard the rival submissions through virtual court and scanned the relevant material on record. The facts are not in dispute. However, a little elaboration of the primary and essential facts is essential. The assessee and his brother, Dattatray Laxman Khandge, the other assessee in the present batch of appeals, inherited land at Survey Nos. 676/677/679 after the death of their father Shri Laxman Tukaram Khandge. An agreement was entered into on 03-12-1984 by their father with one Mr. Kuldeep Singh Nanda for transfer of the said land. The matter went into litigation. Mr. Kuldeep Singh Nanda filed a Civil suit, which ended with a Compromise decree on 04-01-2000 whereby Mr. Kuldeep Singh ITA Nos.653 and 652/PUN/2017 V.L. Khandge and Santosh D. Khandge Nanda was to be paid a sum of Rs.62,75,000/-. As Sh. Laxman Tukaram Khandge had died by that time, the assessee and his brother executed the Compromise decree. In order to finance the payment to Mr. Kuldeep Singh Nanda, the assessee entered into an agreement for transfer of the land with M/s. V.S. Kolbhor & Associates for a consideration of Rs.93,25,000/-. Form 37-I, accompanied by the Agreement dated 06.05.2000, was filed on 10- 05-2000 with the competent authority under the Income-tax Act seeking approval to the transaction. It is a matter of record that the competent authority also accorded its clearance vide certificate u/s.269-UL(3). Eventually, a registered sale deed was executed on 03-08-2006. In the backdrop of the above facts, the moot question which arises in the instant case is to find out the date of transfer triggering the provisions of Chapter IV-E of the Act. The AO has opined that transfer took place on execution of the sale deed on 03- 08-2006 and hence capital gain became chargeable u/s.45 of the Act in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2007-08 under consideration. Au contraire, the assessee has canvassed a view that the transfer took place on 06.05.2000 and hence, the capital gain could not be charged to tax in the year under consideration.