Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2020 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (7) TMI 604 - HC - Income TaxCapital Gains - Slump sale or sale of individual assets - whether the Tribunal was right in affirming the order passed by AO and holding that the transfer of the division is to be treated as a 'slump sale' and not sale of individual items and consequently, Section 50B was attracted? - to be taxed u/s 41(2) or under the head “capital gains” - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) rendered a factual finding that the assessee has assigned separate values for the immovables consisting of land and building and movables consisting of furnitures and fixtures, plant and machinery, patents, net current assets and therefore, concluded that the consideration for transfer cannot be called as a lump sum consideration. - It was decided that, the sale effected by the assessee does not constitute “slump sale” as per Section 2(42C) of the Act and hence the provisions of Section 50B will not be applicable. We find that all that the Revenue stated was that CIT(A) erred in holding that the sale effected by the assessee does not constitute “slump sale” as per Section 2(42C) of the Act and hence provisions of Section 50B will not be applicable. The same grounds have been repeated, but not in the same format, but by adopting a different style. Substantial question of law framed for consideration in this appeal undoubtedly are mixed questions of fact and law. The question of remanding the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration would not arise for the simple reason that the fact that the individual assets were separately valued as recorded by the CIT(A) was never disputed by the Revenue before the Tribunal. Therefore, on such admitted facts, if we examine the finding of the Tribunal, more particularly, in paragraph 13 of the order, we find that the same calls for interference. As decided in Artex Manufacturing Company [1997 (7) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT] value of the plant, machinery and dead stock though not mentioned in the agreement, but information was furnished by the assessee before the Income Tax Officer from which it became evident that the plant, machinery and dead stock were separately valued and therefore, it was held that it is not a case in which it cannot be said that the price attributed to the items transferred is not indicated and hence Section 41(2) of the 1961 Act cannot be applied. This decision would clearly support the case of the assessee, who had succeeded before the CIT(A) by establishing that the individual assets were separately valued and documents to the said effect were produced. Added to that the Revenue did not dispute such a factual position before the Tribunal and consequently, the finding rendered by the Tribunal does not merit acceptance. - Decided in favour of the assessee
|