TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 949X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t merely allotted the land, but had sold the land to the original proprietrix and had delivered possession to her pursuant to such a sale. In the absence of either of these documents being produced before the Income-tax authorities concerned, and in as much as the sale deed specifically stipulates that the property was sold by virtue of the sale deed dated 07.08.1990, the Tribunal cannot be said to have erred in affirming the order passed by the CIT (Appeals), fixing the date of acquisition as 07.08.1990 i.e. when the sale deed was executed by the APIIC in favour of the appellant herein. It is only if a substantial question of law arises for consideration, from the order passed by the ITAT, would this Court be justified in exercising its jurisdiction, under Section 260-A, to entertain this appeal. We are satisfied that no such substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present proceedings. - I.T.T.A. NO. 428 OF 2018 - - - Dated:- 10-9-2018 - SRI RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND SRI KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, JJ. For The Petitioner : K VASANTKUMAR JUDGMENT: {Per the Hon ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan} ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should be taken as the cost of acquisition in the hands of the assessee firm. The assessing officer re-determined the long term capital gains as ₹ 23,61,816/-. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant herein carried the matter in appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who held that the proprietary concern and the partnership concern were two different entities; the land was originally allotted by the APIIC to M/s. Veena Industries, a proprietary concern of Smt. C.Rajkumari; possession was delivered to her on 28.11.1973; the business was carried on in the said premises; after more than ten years, Smt. C.Rajkumari wanted to convert the proprietary concern into a partnership firm, by introducing three more partners, as on 01.04.1986; thus, the land could be said to have been freshly purchased by four persons, all being partners of the firm, which had come into operation by virtue of the partnership deed dated 17.04.1986; and they purchased the land vide sale deed dated 07.08.1990. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that the registered sale deed clearly showed that APIIC had given the land to these four persons who had formed a partnership firm; the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dustrial purposes, the land could not be transferred/passed on from the previous possessor to the partnership firm, and there was a need for the assessee firm to purchase the land free from all encumbrances from the APIIC; in other words, the land could only be engaged in the activity of manufacture or intended to carry on the old business; the vacant land could not be said to be the land owned by the previous owner; in order to appreciate as to whether the APIIC had a right to withhold the property from a manufacturer, whenever there was a change in the constitution of the members manning the business, one had to refer to the rules prescribed thereunder; the assessee had not placed any document, other than the sale deed which merely indicated that, though vacant possession was delivered to M/s. Veena Industries (earlier owned by its proprietrix) on 20.11.1973, M/s. Veena Industries had to purchase the property, by reconstituting itself into a partnership firm, for a sum of ₹ 15,000/-; therefore, the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not necessitate interference; the cost of the land, as on 07.08.1990, should be taken into consideration; and the contention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he asset was acquired by the partnership firm by succession from the proprietrix i.e., whether they became owners of the property by succession. It is only if ownership of the subject property which, admittedly belonged to the APIIC/Government of A.P, was transferred by them to the proprietrix, could the partnership firm claim ownership of the subject property by succession. There does not appear to be any dispute that the subject land was allotted to the proprietrix by the APIIC, and possession of the land was delivered to her on 28.11.1973. The contents of the original allotment letter, whereby the land was allotted to the proprietrix, was not placed before any of the authorities including the ITAT, nor was it placed even before us. What was relied upon was the sale deed alone and it is, therefore, necessary to take note of the contents of the sale deed in deciding whether or not the appellant is justified in their contention that the cost of acquisition should be determined as on 01.04.1981. The sale deed, whereby the subject land was alienated in favour of the partners of the partnership firm, is dated 07.08.1990 itself, and refers to an agreement of sale having ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
