COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. P.SRINIVASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revenue is on appeal as against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal relating to the assessment years 1993 -94 and 1995 -96.The following are the substantial questions of law raised in these appeals: -

(2.) SINCE the issues raised in all these appeals are common and the Tribunal had also considered the issues in respect of Assessment Year sunder a common order we feel, it is better that the entire case is dealt with under a common order.

(3.) A perusal of the power of attorney executed by the assessee T.R. Harikrishnan which is placed before us shows that M/s. Emerald Promoters Pvt. Ltd. has been authorised to sell the property in part or full, or sub -divide or undivided share and to receive sale consideration on behalf of the assessee T.R. Harikrishnan. The said Power of Attorney also pointed out that M/s. Emerald Promoters Pvt. Ltd. was authorised to take possession of the Schedule property and administer the same, to make house plots, construct houses/ flats develop the schedule property, to apply for housing/Residential flats/ commercial flats, building plan before all the statutory housing authorities. However, subsequent to this General power of attorney, the assessee herein along with other owners entered into a tripartite agreement with M/s. Sudsun Housing Development(I) Ltd. and M/s. Emerald Promoters Pvt. Limited, the assessee's General power of attorney as the confirming party under the deed of agreement dated 27.10.1994whereinit is stated that the confirming party due to paucity of funds, desired to relinquish their role as contractors of vendors 1 to 5, which included the assessee before this court and the vendors desired to develop the Schedule ' A ' Property through the purchaser viz., M/s. Sudsun Housing Development(I) Ltd. . The said deed of agreement also referred to sale of undivided share of0.4650 percent, 0.4650 percent and 0.4636 percent undivided shares in favour of three other vendors, who are parties to this agreement. Accoridngly, the sale deeds were executed through power of attorney on behalf, of the vendors 1 to 5.As already pointed out the assessee before this court are two among the five vendors. The deed also refers to the sale consideration of Rs. 90 lakhs and the mode of payment of Rs. 90 lakhs as follows: