R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J.

The petitioner entered into an agreement on March 29, 1993, for the sale of her property which agreement, inter alia, provided for delivery of possession of the property to the proposed vendee on receipt of the consideration specified in the agreement. The consideration so specified being a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs was received by the assessee/petitioner in August, 1993. She executed a power of attorney on August 17, 1993, in favour of the two partners of the firm with whom she had entered into an agreement of sale. The power of attorney was executed after clearance had been obtained for the sale of property under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act. The property remained with the firm, Chettinad Investments, which had taken possession from the petitioner during the year 1993-94. The firm did not choose to obtain a sale deed from the petitioner and have it registered. Instead, the partners of the firm who had obtained power of attorney proceeded to sell the portions of the property on and after March, 1995, to others and those sale deeds were executed by them describing themselves as the agents of the petitioner-assessee.

The petitioner in her return for the assessment year 1994-95 reported a capital gain from the sale of the property by treating the transfer of possession to the proposed vendees in August, 1993, as having resulted in a transfer for the purpose of section 2(47) of the Act which in clause (v) provides that any transaction involving the allowing of possession of any immovable property to be taken or retained in part performance of a contract of the nature referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Act 4 of 1882), would amount to a transfer in relation to the capital asset. The sum of Rs. 25 lakhs was shown as proceeds of the transfer and long-term capital gain was worked out at Rs. 19, 60, 500. After having filed that return, she subsequently filed a statement revising the net capital gain as Rs. 7, 05, 800 claiming that there was no transfer during the assessment year 1994-95 and that the actual transfers were made in the assessment year 1995-96 when persons to whom she had given power of attorney executed sale deeds in favour of others and registered those sale deeds in that year. That claim of the assessee was rejected by the Assessing Officer. A revision to the Commissioner under section 264 of the Act also having proved unsuccessful, the assessee has filed the writ petition challenging the order of the Commissioner. The assessee has also challenged the levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C on the income that was added in her assessment for the year 1994-95 on the ground that no interest under those provisions can be levied on the income that was assessed and that the interest under those provisions can only be levied on the income declared.Mr. V. Ramachandran, learned senior counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Commissioner has misconstrued section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, the essential ingredients of which as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Nathulal v. Phoolchand, are - (1) that the transferor has contracted to transfer for consideration any immovable property by writing signed by him or on his behalf from which the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty; (2) that the transferee has, in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the property or any part thereof, or the transferee, being already in possession continues in possession in part performance of the contract; (3) that the transferee has done some act in furtherance of the contract; and (4) that the transferee had performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract.

Counsel submitted that section 53A of the Act contemplates an agreement for the sale of the property with a person whose identity remains unchanged even when the sale deed is executed. It is contended that the agreement in this ca