|COURT:||Madras High Court|
|CORAM:||R. Karuppiah J, R. Sudhakar J|
|CATCH WORDS:||capital gains, Power of Attorney, transfer|
|DATE:||November 3, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)|
|DATE:||November 14, 2014 (Date of publication)|
|FILE:||Click here to download the file in pdf format|
|S. 2(47)(vi): A Power of Attorney which does not enable enjoyment of property does not result in a "transfer". CBDT Circular No.495 dated 22.9.1987 reads more into s. 2(47)(vi) than warranted|
(i) There is no transfer to or enabling enjoyment of property in favour of the assessee in any manner and therefore, sub-clause (vi) of Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act does not get attracted. Clause 21 of the power of attorney, which has been already referred to supra, clearly reveals that no consideration was received from the power agent for appointing him as power of attorney. It also emphasised therein that the property right has not been handed over to the power agent. We are, therefore, unable to accept the plea of the Revenue that there was an element of transfer or enabling enjoyment in favour of the assessee. The letter of the land owner subsequently issued does not come to the aid of the Department. It is the duty of the power of attorney holder to deliver the amount received for the purpose of transfer of property. Therefore, no fault could be found on the part of the assessee. Assuming that he had delivered certain sum to the land owner, it is but the lawful duty of the power of attorney to deliver payment to the land owner. The sale to Dr.Meera Bai is also for the same value. Hence, nothing turns on the letter of the erstwhile owner, in favour of the Department.
(ii) We, therefore, now proceed to analyse the meaning behind circular No.495 dated 22.9.1987. The interpretation of the circular as put forward by the Revenue, we are not in agreement. The provisions of sub-clause (vi) of Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act make it clear that the transaction, which has the effect of transferring or enabling the enjoyment of immovable property alone would come within the ambit of transfer. The circular reads something more into the provision. We are not inclined to accept such an interpretation. The circular also states that the legal ownership would continue with the transferor; but the property rights if it is transferred by way of power of attorney would come within the ambit of sub-clause (vi) of Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act. Assuming we accept the intention behind the circular, then there should be an element of transfer or enabling enjoyment of property right as stated in paragraph 11.2 of the circular by the power of attorney holder.
(iii) We find no such recital in the power of attorney as extracted by the Tribunal and referred to by us. On the contrary, the terms of the power of attorney clearly show that property rights has not been transferred to the power of attorney holder and there is also no provision for enabling enjoyment. It is not the case of the Department that the power of attorney is sham. If they accept the power of attorney is valid, then the plea of capital gains at the hands of the assessee has no legs to stand.