C. RAVI Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE connected cases arise from the block assessment completed in the case of two assessees under s. 158BD r/w s. 158BC of the IT Act, 1961 for the years 1986 -87 to 1996 -97. We have heard Sri P. Balakrishnan, counsel appearing for the appellants and standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) THE common question pertains to assessment of short -term capital gains in respect of sale of petrol bunk. The case of both the assessees is that even though there was an agreement for sale, sale had not in fact taken place and after cancelling the agreement, sale was later made to the brother of the original transferee. However, the finding of the Tribunal is that pursuant to agreement for sale, possession itself was given and the transferee was carrying on business for later years. It is a common practice that under a sale agreement the purchaser can nominate another person in whose favour the sale deed is executed. The Tribunal has found that the transaction, namely, the agreement for sale itself is a transfer within the meaning of s. 2(47)(v) of the IT Act which reads that even a transaction under s. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act is a transfer within the meaning of the said provision. In view of this finding of the Tribunal that the purchaser was given possession, the appellants are not entitled to canvass for the position that s. 2(47(v) is not applicable. Consequently, we dismiss the appeals on this issue upholding the finding of the Tribunal.

(3.) IN IT Appeal No. 145 of 2002, the only other issue pertains to addition of Rs. 3,24,165. Even though the assessee explained the source as cash balance available in the business transaction, namely, Sree Bhagavathy Services, the Tribunal found that no books of account or documents were produced in support of the business and income the assessee had. Further, the Tribunal noticed that under the returns filed Sree Bhagavathy Services had returned only loss for the three years, that is, 1993 -94 to 1995 -96. In the circumstances, the Tribunal rightly disbelieved the source claimed by the assessee.