TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 665X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 was not challenged by the Department before the Tribunal and therefore the said decision had become final. The Ld. Representative also pointed out that even assessee had not challenged the decision of the CIT(A) before the Tribunal for assessment year 2004-05 in sustaining the disallowance of ₹ 75,000/-.In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, we deem it fit and proper to affirm the order of the CIT(A) on this aspect and accordingly the Grounds of Appeal No.2.1 to 2.3 of the assessee and the cross-Ground raised by the Revenue in its appeal are dismissed. The CIT(A) has deleted a sum of ₹ 2,96,000/- and retained a disallowance of ₹ 3,00,000/- on an ad-hoc basis. In coming to such conclusion, the CIT(A) followed the order of his predecessor in the assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2004-05. At the time of hearing before us, it was submitted by the Ld. Representative that in assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05, the Tribunal in assessee’s own case vide ITA Nos.1005/PN/2007 and 88/PN/2008 respectively dated 30.06.2011 has setaside the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh verification. Following the aforesaid precedent, which is not d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Respondent : Mr. B. C. Malakar ORDER Per G. S. Pannu, AM The captioned are cross-appeals, each by the assessee and the Revenue, pertaining to the assessment year 2005-06, which were heard together and are being disposed-off by way of a consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The captioned cross-appeals are directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Pune dated 17.09.2012 which, in turn, has arisen from an order dated 30.12.2008 passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ). 3. In the appeal of the assessee, Grounds of Appeal raised read as under :- 1.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming an addition of ₹ 1,56,03,500/- by applying the provisions of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating that the appellant company had sold a depreciable asset wherein the capital gains is computed u/s. 50 and as the provisions of section 50C were not applicable to depreciable assets, the addition of ₹ 1,56,03,500/- made by applying the provisions of section 50C is not justified at all. 1.2 Without prejudice to ground no 1.1, the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3,17,240/- (being 0.2% of Workman Staff Welfare Expenses, Sales Promotion Expenses, Advertisement Expenses and Travelling Expenses in all aggregating to ₹ 15,86,19,829/-) to cover the leakage of revenue. 4. In so far as the Ground of Appeal Nos.1.1 to 1.3 is concerned, it relates to an addition of ₹ 1,56,03,500/- made by the Assessing Officer by applying section 50C of the Act. 5. In brief, the relevant facts are that assessee was owning two office units in Mustafa Building, Phirozshah Mehta Road, Fort, Mumbai, which were sold during the year under consideration for a total consideration of ₹ 3,50,00,000/- in terms of a Deed of Apartment registered on 23.12.2004. The Assessing Officer noted that the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority for the purposes of payment of stamp duty in respect of the deed executed on 23.12.2004 was ₹ 5,06,03,500/-, which was more than the actual consideration received by the assessee. Therefore, he show-caused the assessee as to why the value so considered by the Stamp Valuation Authority be not considered as full value of consideration for the purposes of computing capital gain on sale of the property on the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for sale of the property on 20.04.2004 itself, wherein the consideration of ₹ 3,50,00,000/- was also finalized. In this context, reference has been made to the copy of the MOU dated 20.04.2004 filed in the Paper Book at pages 1 to 10. The Ld. Representative pointed out that at the time of entering of the MOU on 20.04.2004 not only the final consideration was agreed upon but advance was also received which has been duly noted in the final Deed of Apartment executed on 23.12.2004. He, therefore, submitted that if at all the provisions of section 50C are to be applied and the value assessable by the Stamp Valuation Authority for the purposes of stamp duty is to be adopted as the consideration for the purposes of computing capital gain, it should be done with reference to the value as on 20.04.2004. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative appearing for the Revenue contended that the value adopted for the purposes of payment of stamp duty as on the date of transfer should be adopted for the purposes of section 50C of the Act, which in the present case is 23.12.2004. 9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) on this aspect and accordingly the Grounds of Appeal No.2.1 to 2.3 of the assessee and the cross-Ground raised by the Revenue in its appeal are dismissed. 13. Ground of Appeal No.3 raised by the assessee is with regard to an adhoc disallowance of ₹ 3,00,000/- sustained by the CIT(A) out of the vehicle expenses. In this context, brief facts are that in the year under consideration, assessee had incurred of total expenditure on vehicles at ₹ 1.19 crores out of which the Assessing Officer made an ad-hoc disallowance of ₹ 5,96,000/- on the ground that the expenses were not incurred wholly or exclusively for the purposes of business. The CIT(A) has deleted a sum of ₹ 2,96,000/- and retained a disallowance of ₹ 3,00,000/- on an ad-hoc basis. In coming to such conclusion, the CIT(A) followed the order of his predecessor in the assessee s own case for the assessment year 2004-05. At the time of hearing before us, it was submitted by the Ld. Representative that in assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05, the Tribunal in assessee s own case vide ITA Nos.1005/PN/2007 and 88/PN/2008 respectively dated 30.06.2011 has setaside the issue back to the file of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
