SANTOSH CHAUDHARY vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHANDIGARH AND ANR

PDF · subscribers
ITA/64/2015HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01110165201528 July 2015Author: MR. JUSTICE M.M. AGGARWAL,MR. JUSTICE A.B. CHAUDHARI2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the matter was covered by its earlier judgment in C.S. Atwal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana. Consequently, all the substantial questions of law were answered in favour of the appellant/assessee and against the respondent. The Court found that the transactions in question did not constitute a "transfer" exigible to tax under Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The reasoning implicitly followed the principles laid down in the C.S. Atwal case, which likely addressed the nature of possession, the effect of non-registration of agreements, and the taxability of amounts not yet received. The appeal was allowed in the same terms as in the C.S. Atwal judgment. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Santosh Chaudhary, filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh against an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax. The appeal pertains to assessment year(s) not explicitly stated in the judgment. The core of the dispute revolves around whether certain transactions constitute a "transfer" exigible to tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court considered the matter in light of a previous Division Bench judgment in ITA No. 200 of 2013, C.S. Atwal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana, decided on 22.07.2015. The procedural history indicates that the appeal was admitted on substantial questions of law.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal was called upon to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the transactions in hand envisage a “transfer” exigible to tax by reference to Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882? 2. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has ignored rights emanating from the JDA (Joint Development Agreement), the legal effect of non-registration of the JDA, its alleged repudiation, etc.? 3. Whether “possession” as envisaged by Section 2(47)(v) and Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was delivered, and if so, its nature and legal effect? 4. Whether there was any default on the part of the developers, and if so, its effect on the transactions and on exigibility to tax? 5. Whether an amount yet to be received can be taxed on a hypothetical assumption arising from the amount to be received? The assessee contended that the transactions did not constitute a taxable transfer, and that the Tribunal had overlooked crucial aspects of the JDA and possession. The revenue's contentions are not explicitly recorded, but it is implied they argued for the taxability of the transactions. The assessee relied on the judgment in C.S. Atwal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(47)(v),Section 53-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 64 of 2015 Date of Decision:- 28.07.2015 Santosh Chaudhary ......Petitioner(s) vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present:- Ms. Rinku Dahiya, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate, for the respondent. S.J. VAZIFDAR, A.C.J. (Oral) The matter is covered against the respondents and in favour of the appellant/assessee by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in ITA No. 200 of 2013, C.S. Atwal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana and another decided on 22.07.2015. The questions of law raised in this case are re-framed on the lines of the questions framed by the Division Bench in the above said

judgment.

The appeal is, therefore, admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- i) “Whether the transactions in hand envisage a “transfer” exigible to tax by reference to Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882? SHIVANI GUPTA 2015.07.30 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

ii) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, has ignored rights emanating from the JDA, legal effect of non registration of JDA, its alleged repudiation etc.? iii) Whether “possession” as envisaged by Section 2(47)(v) and Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was delivered, and if so, its nature and legal effect? iv) Whether there was any default on the part of the developers, and if so, its effect on the transactions and on exigibility to tax? v) Whether amount yet to be received can be taxed on an hypothetical assumption arising from the amount to be received?” The questions of law are answered in favour of the appellant/assessee and against the respondents. The appeal is accordingly allowed in the same terms as in C.S. Atwal's case (supra). (S.J. VAZIFDAR) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE 28.07.2015 shivani SHIVANI GUPTA 2015.07.30 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

More judgments on Section 2(47)(v)

All 331 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(47)(v) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →