F.C. RUSTAGI, J.M. In this appeal preferred by assessee, main dispute is regarding levy of long term capital gains in respect of two sales of plots, one executed in favour of assessees real sister Dr. Mrs Surjit Tandon and other in favour of Mrs. Anu Malhotra, daughter of assessee s real brother. plots were out of lands appurtenant to property No.25. Bhupindera Nagar Road, Patiala. When ITO wanted to subject said capital gains to tax, assessee came forward with contention that two sales were not only bogus and same but one in favour of Dr. Mrs Surjit Tandon was even unilateral and same were executed to avoid confiscation of land under Land Ceiling Act. Affidavits of vendor and vendee in support of said sales being fictitious were placed by assessee. It was also contended that firstly there were no sales, secondly in alternative it was sale of agricultural lands. ITO as per reasons recorded by him in his order rejected contention of assessee and subjected capital gains of Rs.95,000 to tax. Aggrieved by said assessment order assessee came before AAC who confirmed finding of ITO for detailed reasons given by him in his order. It is said action of AAC which is contested by assessee before us. In ground of appeal, dispute is raised regarding total sum of Rs.95,000 excluding rebate under s. 80TT but at time of arguments it was submitted that real dispute is regarding chargeabilty of Rs.67,500 and not Rs.95,000 mentioned in ground of appeal. ld. Counsel for assessee gave note on facts of background of issue and also submitted papers in support of assessee's contention that land in question was agricultural as there were mango trees on same. ld. counsel for assessee also submitted that very same land was subsequently sold by assessee herself for sum of Rs.3,86,000 to other vendees and drew our attention to saw deed in respect of same available on pages 10 and 11 of assessee s compilation. He also drew our attention to page as per which there was deposition of one Baldev Raj who had taken said orchards belonging to assessee of mangoes on lease. Drawing our attention to page 13, which is affidavit from Dr.(Mrs. Surjit Tandon, he submitted that once land is agricultural, in light of Bombay High Court decision reported in Monubhai A. Sheth & Ors vs. N.D. Nirgudkar, ITO (1981) 22 CTR (Bom) 41 (1981) 128 ITR 87 (Bom) capital gains could not be subjected to tax. He submitted that whether land is agricultural there is no finding to that effect given either by ITO or AAC. He also drew our attention to affidavit of Dr.(Mrs) S, Tandon who denied having purchase any land. There he also relied on Hiralal Ram Dayal vs. CIT (1980) 14 CTR (P&H) 88: (1980) 122 ITR 461 (P&H) for proposition that registration of sale deed is not last word for sale. ld. Departmental Representative, on other hand, besides relying on order of two lower authorities, read at length Para 4 of AAC's order and submitted that it was device which was created by assessee and, therefore, should have no seal of recognition from any judicial body. In support thereof he relied on CIT vs. Korji Junabhai Kutecha 1977 CTR(SC) 137: (1977) 107 ITR 101 (SC) also for proposition that in respect of sale made to Mrs. Tandon thought only Rs.10,000 were received on basis of doctrine of accrual and arrival, capital gains should be subjected to tax and was rightly done so by two lower authorities. He relied on Shiv Prasad Ram Sahai vs. CIT (1966) 61 ITR 124 (All), Seth Pushalal Mansinghka (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1967) 66 ITR 159 (SC) and many decision in support of contention that capital gains even on sale of agricultural land should be subjected to tax. other cases relied upon were S.P. Jaiswal vs. CIT (1979) 12 CTR (P&H) 123: (1980) 130 ITR 643 (P&H), Ambalal Mangilal vs. Union of India (1975) 98 ITR 237 (Guj), Amrit Lal Chhagan Lal & Anr. vs. CIT (1972) 84 ITR 677 (Guj) and D.L.F. Housing & Construction (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1982) 29 CTR (Del) 199: (1983) 141 ITR 806 (Del). However, he was fair enough to admit that this Bench consistently has been relying on (1981) 128 ITR 87 (Bom) (supra). After taking into consideration rival submission and going through facts available on record in detail. We are unable to confirm finding of AAC and accept contention of assessee on both counts that sale AAC and accept contention of assessee on both counts that sale were sham and even if same are admitted to be genuine, for sake of arguments, being agricultural land, no capital gains could be levied. To narrate facts briefly it was on 31st May,1976 that assessee out o f her property No.25, Bhupinder Nagar Road, Patiala out of agricultural land appurtenant thereto, effected two sales on 31st May, 1976 which were duly registered with sub-Registrar on 1st June, 1976. two plots areas covering 2392 sq. yds. and 975 sq. yds were sold in favour of Dr. (Mrs.) S. Tandon, real sister of assessee and Anu Malhotra, daughter of assessee's real brother. sale deed in favour of Dr. (Mrs.) Surjit Tandon was executed for sum of Rs.80,000 in which Rs. 10,000 were paid to vendor by one Shri Mittar Sen s/o Shri Thakus Dass and balance amount of Rs. 70,000 was agreed t o be recovered in equal instalments in one year and three months. possession of land was admitted having been given to vendee but said deed was neither signed by vendee Smt. Tandon nor anyone was duly authorised on her behalf. photostat copy of deed in question and its English translation is available on assessee's compilation. Though Shri Mittar Sen has been shown as vendee but does not have any power of attorney from Dr. (Mrs.) Tandon nor there is any proof that he was specifically authorised to enter into deal on her behalf as under Registration Act, in respect of sale deeds which are through power of attorney registered document is required and it is always mentioned there in sale deed. said sale deed does not mention that there was any power of attorney with Mr. Mittar Sen to Act as vendee. When we peruse page 11 of first paper book, we find it is averred that Mittar Sen had no authority from Dr.(Mrs) Tandon and this is uncontroverted fact. One Bishan Singh has signed as witness but it was stated at Bar that he was not brother of vendor or vendee. He too did not held any power of attorney. Normally we could agree with ld. Departmental Representative that vendee is not required to be present for registration of sale deed but in case where Rs.10,000 out of Rs.80,000 are paid and Rs. 70,000 are to be paid in instalments of 15 months, no unilateral document could cast burden on vendee Mrs. Surjit Tandon when neither she was party to sale deed nor anyone else duly authorised by her on her behalf was party nor on her behalf. There is affidavit not only of vendor but of vendee admitting about shamness of sales. Similarly there is affidavit in respect of Anu Malhotra and except advance of Rs.5,000 balance of Rs.25,000 was never received by assessee though this deed is duly signed by Anu Malhotra but in light of admission from both sides it goes to prove beyond doubt that two deeds were not only sham but worthless and were executed not only for reasons best known to vendor but as clearly admitted by her to get out of mischief of Land Ceiling Act. This is also uncontroverted that every after sale deeds were executed, Mrs. Kaushslya Atma Ram had been showing said lands in her wealth tax return which were subjected to tax whereas Mrs. Surjit Tandon who was also wealth tax assessee had never shown said lands in her wealth tax return except showing advance of Rs. 10,000 which was paid as part, There is also certificate besides copy of Farad Jamaban showing said land having 30 mango tree and it was on lease with one BaldevRaj. Registration of sale has not been accepted to be last word by Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Hira Lal Ram Dayal vs. CIT (1990) 14 CTR (P&H) 88: (1980) 122 ITR 461 (P&H) wherein dealing with same through registered sale deed, Tribunal had observed as under. "If we are to ignore document which is duly registered with sub- registrar, we will be defeating purpose of Indian Registration Act of 1908, when assessee intends to derive certain benefits from statute, and that too Indian Registration Act, where registration of document is condition precedent and he cannot ignore document so registered, much less can we. Therefore, when assessee contends that sale deed executed and registered with Sub-Registrar, should be taken to be sham and bogus document and should be ignored we can do no better than condemn his contention, contention which, if we may say so, is preposterous and dishonourable. We will not go by any other consideration but one that document before us is registered document duly registered with sub- registrar. and whatever it says has to be accepted on its face value. We have, therefore, no hesitation in agreeing with Revenue authorities that therefore, no hesitation in agreeing with Revenue authorities that registered document is genuine one and because said document shows consideration of Rs. 1,31,400 sale consideration which passed is Rs. 1,31,400 cost of assets as shown is Rs. 12,387. Therefore, capital gain has been rightly computed at Rs.1,18,513 which we confirm." About above finding of Tribunal, their Lordships observed in their order that while giving same Tribunal fell in error. About aspect capital gains on agricultural lands consistently we have been relying on Bombay High Court decision reported in (1981) 128 ITR 87 (Bom) (supra). We are aware that there ware other decision but most of them stand discussed in said decision such as (1972) 84 ITR 677 (Guj) and (1975) 98 ITR 237 (Guj) (supra) moreover, it becomes matter of two opinion. While accepting contention of assessee that land in question was agricultural we also rely on revenue's record copy which was placed before us besides certificate of Baldev Raj to whom said land was given on lease. Reliance of ld. Departmental Representative on entire case law is misplaced with which we will be dealing hereafter, seriatim. On facts of present case judgement in case of Shiv Prasad Ram Sahai vs. CIT (1966) 61 ITR 124 (All) is misplaced. said case was on m e t h o d of accounting. Probably attempt of ld. Departmental Representative was that once there is sale deed and even if Rs. 10,000 are recovered as advance, even on balance capital gains should be computed. But we have since held that sales were sham even from far- fetched angle this case cannot be fatal to assessee's claim. other decision is that of Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Kurji Jinabhai Kotecha 1977CTR (SC) 137: (1977) 107 ITR 101 (SC). On this as well reliance is misplaced. In said case what was relied upon by ld. Departmental Representative was following observation available on page 107 of report: "It is inconceivable that law can permit illegal activity to be carried on from which benefit could be obtained." Apparently, observation of Supreme Court relates to interpretation of law. In present case we have to find it as fact whether there were sale effected to Mrs. Tandon and Anu Malhotra. If at all there was any illegality or device. It was to defeat Urban Land Ceiling Act and not to evade tax. We have already held above Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in case of Hira Lal Ram Dayal(supra) in which registered sale deed has not been accepted to be last word. reliance on case of Seth Pushalal Mansinghka (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1967) 66 (ITR) 159 (SC) (supra) becomes academic because once we have held it to be sham and make-to-believe sale or bogus sale, it would be just academic to go in dispute regarding accrual or arisal respect matter. Regarding contention of assessee that value of said land was returned by assessee in her wealth tax return, we can be in agreement with ld. Departmental Representative that whatever assessee shows as her income in return revenue does not Act inconsistently if it is accepted by Revenue but at same time, evidentiary value of acts, assessee showing value of said land in her wealth tax return and vendee not showing same shows us as to what sale was worth. Other decisions reported in (1975) 98 ITR 237 (supra) (1972) 84 ITR 677 (supra), (1983) 141 ITR 806 (Del) (supra) are in respect of levy of capital gains on sale of agricultural land but against that we have Bombay High Court decision on which while answering question whether profits of gains made on transfer of agricultural land is income if so whether it is revenue and if it is revenue whether it is derived from land etc., their lordships dealing with almost all case law relied upon by ld. Departmental Representative came to conclusion which goes in favour of assessee in which it is held "capital gains arising from sale of land situate in India, which land is used for agricultural purpose would be revenue derived from such land and, therefore, agricultural income within meaning of s.2(1) of IT Act, 1961." decision in case of CIT vs. Ashokbhai Chimanbhai (1965) 56 ITR 4 2 (SC) is again regarding accrual or arisal of income about which we have already observed it is academic in instant case. Mainly we rely on Punjab and Harayana High Court decision in case of Hira Lal Ram Dayal (1980) 14 CTR (P&H) 88: (1980) 122 ITR 461 (P&H) that registered sale deed is not last word for transfer and than on basis of evidence available on record that two sales were bogus, sham or manipulated and as lands were agricultural, assessee could not be subjected to capital gains tax on transfer of decision of plots to Dr.(Mrs.) Surjit Tandon and Mrs. Anu Malhotra. Action of AAC is hereby reversed. In result, assessee's appeal is allowed. *** MRS. K. ATMA RAM v. INCOME TAX OFFICER