Case: Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Balbir Singh Maini

3. The present appeals arise from a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court where a large number of appeals were disposed of under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The following substantial questions of law were raised before the HighWhether 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 Section53A of the Transfer of Property Act,1882?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 Section53A of the Transfer of Property Act,1982 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 a hypothetical assumption arising from the amount to beFor the sake of convenience, we have referred to the facts of Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.1565 of 2016 (Commissioner of Income Tax v. Charanjit Singh Atwal).5. The Respondents before us are members of the Punjabi Cooperative Housing Building Society Ltd. The society consisted of 95 members and was the owner of 21.2 acres, of which 500 square yards plots were held by 65 members, 1000 square yards plots by 30 members and the remaining 4 plots of 500 square yards each were being retained by it. The bone of contention in the present appeal is a tripartite Joint Development Agreement (JDA) dated 25.02.2007 for development of 21.2 acres of land in the village Kansal. This JDA was entered into between the owner i.e. Punjabi Cooperative Housing Building Society Ltd., Hash Builders Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh (HASH) and Tata Housing Development Company Ltd. (THDC). Under the JDA, it was agreed that HASH and THDC viz., the developers, will undertake to develop 21.2 acres of land owned and registered in the name of the society. The agreed consideration was to be disbursed by THDC through HASH to each individual member of the society, and different amounts and flats were payable and allotable to members having different plot sizes. The developers were to make payments in four instalments. A sum of Rs. 3.87 crores was paid on execution of the JDA. Rs. 15.48 crores was to be paid against a registered sale deed for land of an equivalent value of 3.08 acres, earmarked on the demarcation plan annexed to the JDA, which was effected by a registered conveyance dated 02.03.2007. The second instalment payment, being Rs. 23.22 crores, was for land of an equivalent value of 4.62 acres, also earmarked on the demarcation plan, which was effected by a registered deed of conveyance dated 25.04.2007. The third instalment payment of Rs. 31.9275 crores was to be made within six months from the date of execution of the agreement or within two months from the date of approval of plans/design and drawings and grant of the final license to develop, whichever was later. This was to be for land of an equivalent value of 6.36 acres, also earmarked on the demarcation plan. The balance payment of Rs. 31.9275 crores was to be made within two months from the date of the last payment, towards full and final settlement of the entire payment of Rs. 106.425 crores, for which a registered sale deed for land of an equivalent value being 7.14 acres, also earmarked on the demarcation plan, was to be conveyed.6. The developers made payments only up to the 2nd instalment payment, and 7.7 acres of land was conveyed as mentioned, which we have been reliably informed, has since suffered payment of capital gains tax for assessment years9. The problem which arose for the subsequent assessment years was that, due to pending proceedings, first in the Punjab and Haryana High Court and thereafter in the Delhi High Court, the necessary permissions for development were not granted, as a result of which the JDA did not take off the ground. For the previous year relevant to the assessment yearthe assessee filed an original return of income on 07.12.2007, declaring an income of Rs.The return of income tax for the assessment year was later revised, on 07.10.2009, declaring an income of Rs.which included capital gains of Rs.According to the assessee, Rs. 36 lakhs received in the subsequent assessment yearwere also offered for tax under the head "capital gains".7. The Assessing Officer vide an order dated 30.12.2009, passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, held that since physical and vacant possession had been handed over under the JDA, the same would tantamount to "transfer" within the meaning of Sections 2(47)(ii), (v) and (vi) of the Income Tax Act. He further held that, in the case of an assessee owning a 1000 square yards plot, the full value of consideration would be Rs. 3.675 crores less cost of acquisition of Rs.The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal upholding the order passed by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which was also dismissed by the ITAT.9. In the impugned judgment by the High Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, the High Court allowed all the appeals of the assessees andPerusal of the JDA dated 25.02.2007 read with sale deeds dated 02.03.2007 and 25.04.2007 in respect of 3.08 acres and 4.62 acres respectively would reveal that the parties had agreed fortransfer of land.2. No possession had been given by the transferor to the transferee of the entire land in part performance of JDA dated 25.02.2007 so as to fall within the domain of Section 53A of 1882 Act.3. The possession delivered, if at all, was as a licencee for the development of the property and not in the capacity of a transferee.

Reasoning: 16. A reading of the JDA shows that, it is essentially an agreement to facilitate development of 21.2 acres so that the developers build at their own cost, after obtaining necessary approvals, flats of a given size, some of which were then to be handed over to the members of the society. Payments were also to be made by the developer to each member in addition to giving each member a certain number of flats depending upon the size of the members plot that was handed over. What is important to bear in mind is that payments under the third instalment were only to be made after the grant of approvals and not otherwise, and that it is an admitted position that this was never done because no approvals could be obtained as the High Court ultimately interdicted the project. Also, the termination clause is of great significance because it shows that in the event of the JDA being terminated, whatever parcels of land have already been conveyed, will stand conveyed, but that no other conveyances of the remaining land would take place.The effect of the aforesaid amendment is that, on and after the commencement of the Amendment Act of 2001, if an agreement, like the JDA in the present case, is not registered, then it shall have no effect in law for the purposes of Section 53A. In short, there is no agreement in the eyes of law which can be enforced under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. This being the case, we are of the view that the High Court was right in stating that in order to qualify as a "transfer" of a capital asset under Section 2(47)(v) of the Act, there must be a "contract" which can be enforced in law under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. A reading of Section 17(1A) and Section 49 of the Registration Act shows that in the eyes of law, there is no contract which can be taken cognizance of, for the purpose specified in Section 53A. The ITAT was not correct in referring to the expression "of the nature referred to in Section 53A" in Section 2(47)(v) in order to arrive at the opposite conclusion. This expression was used by the legislature ever since(v) was inserted by the Finance Act of 1987 w.e.f. 01.04.1988. All that is meant by this expression is to refer to the ingredients of applicability of Section 53A to the contracts mentioned therein. It is only where the contract contains all the six features mentioned in Shrimant Shamrao Suryavanshi (supra), that the Section applies, and this is what is meant by the expression "of the nature referred to in Section 53A". This expression cannot be stretched to refer to an amendment that was made years later in 2001, so as to then say that though registration of a contract is required by the Amendment Act of 2001, yet the aforesaid expression "of the nature referred to in Section 53A" would somehow refer only to the nature of contract mentioned in Section 53A, which would then in turn not require registration. As has been stated above, there is no contract in the eye of law in force under Section 53A after 2001 unless the said contract is registered. This being the case, and it being clear that the said JDA was never registered, since the JDA has no efficacy in the eye of law, obviously no "transfer" can be said to have taken place under the aforesaid document. Since we are deciding this case on this legal ground, it is unnecessary for us to go into the other questions decided by the High Court, namely, whether under the JDA possession was or was not taken; whether only a licence was granted to develop the property; and whether the developers were or were not ready and willing to carry out their part of the bargain. Since we are of the view that(v) of Section 2(47) of the Act is not attracted on the facts of this case, we need not go into any other factual question.21. However, the High Court has held that Section 2(47)(vi) will not apply for the reason that there was no change in membership of the society, as contemplated. We are afraid that we cannot agree with the High Court on this score. Under Section 2(47)(vi), any transaction which has the effect of transferring or enabling the enjoyment of any immovable property would come within its purview. The High Court has not adverted to the expression "or in any other manner whatsoever" in(vi), which would show that it is not necessary that the transaction refers to the membership of a cooperative society. We have, therefore, to see whether the impugned transaction can fall within this provision.22. The object of Section 2(47)(vi) appears to be to bring within the tax net a de facto transfer of any immovable property. The expression "enabling the enjoyment of" takes color from the earlier expression "transferring", so that it is clear that any transaction which enables the enjoyment of immovable property must be enjoyment as a purported owner thereof.[1*] The idea is to bring within the tax net, transactions, where, though title may not be transferred in law, there is, in substance, a transfer of title in fact.A reading of the JDA in the present case would show that the owner continues to be the owner throughout the agreement, and has at no stage purported to transfer rights akin to ownership to the developer. At the highest, possession alone is given under the agreement, and that too for a specific purposethe purpose being to develop the property, as envisaged by all the parties. We are, therefore, of the view that this clause will also not rope in the present transaction.24. The matter can also be viewed from a slightly different angle. Shri Vohra is right when he has referred to Sections 45 and 48 of the Income Tax Act and has then argued that some real income must "arise" on the assumption that there is transfer of a capital asset. This income must have been received or have "accrued" under Section 48 as a result of the transfer of the capital asset.In the facts of the present case, it is clear that the income from capital gain on a transaction which never materialized is, at best, a hypothetical income. It is admitted that, for want of permissions, the entire transaction of development envisaged in the JDA fell through. In point of fact, income did not result at all for the aforesaid reason. This being the case, it is clear that there is no profit or gain which arises from the transfer of a capital asset, which could be brought to tax under Section 45 read with Section 48 of the Income Tax Act.28. In the present case, the assessee did not acquire any right to receive income, inasmuch as such alleged right was dependent upon the necessary permissions being obtained. This being the case, in the circumstances, there was no debt owed to the assessees by the developers and therefore, the assessees have not acquired any right to receive income under the JDA. This being so, no profits or gains "arose" from the transfer of a capital asset so as to attract Sections 45 and 48 of the Income Tax Act.