TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 630X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the applicability of section 50C of the Act and has not made any additions because Section 50C is not applicable in the case of the assessee and no material on record is available establishing that the assessee has received money over and above the total consideration. R. Samantha Ravindran [ 2013 (3) TMI 271 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] wherein, it has been held that the value of property transferred prior to 01.10.2009 cannot be computed under amended provisions, which came into effect on 01.10.2009 (the word or assessable was inserted w.e.f. 01.10.2009). Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances as explained above we are of the considered view that section 50C is not applicable in the case of the assessee. But the Ld. CIT has wrongly applied the same by ignoring the well reasoned order passed by the AO in the case of the assessee. Therefore, the second issue relating to applicability of Section 50C in the case of assessee is also decided in favour of the assessee and the order of the Ld. CIT on this issue is also cancelled. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 3395/DEL/2013 - - - Dated:- 16-12-2020 - SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide the issue relating to Sundry Creditors (as appearing in the assessee's balance sheet as on 31.03.2008 at ₹ 1,94,77,814/-, while issuing directions to the Id. A.O. to once again look into this issue. The observations of the Id. ClT Meerut are either factually incorrect or legally untenable. 6. That on the facts / circumstances of the case and under the law, the Ld. CIT Meerut has erred in setting aside the issue relating to Capital Gains [arose on transfer of rights in the two office /shops in Arunachal Building , Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, Delhi], while issuing directions to the Id. A.O. to examine the actual market prices thereof. The observations of the ld. ClT Meerut are either factually incorrect or legally untenable. 2. The brief facts relating to the issues are that Assessee filed its return of income on 30.9.2008 declaring NIL income. AO completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (in short Act ) on 30.11.2010 assessing the loss of ₹ 96,15,173/-. The revision order dated 21.3.2013 was passed u/s 263 of I.T. Act by Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut. Prior to passing the aforesaid impugned order dated 21.3.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laws for exercising the jurisdiction u/s 263 of I.T. Act as mentioned in her impugned order. Ld. CIT has also commented upon the sundry creditors totaling to ₹ 19477814/- and decided the same on the basis of various case laws as mentioned in the impugned order and passed the impugned order dated 21.3.2013 u/s. 263 of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, assessee filed the appeal before the tribunal. 2.2 In the course of appellate proceedings before the Tribunal, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has not pressed the ground no. 1 2, hence, the same are dismissed as not pressed. 2.3 The remaining grounds were argued by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and he also filed written submissions alongwith paper book supporting the claim of the assessee. For the sake of convenience, the remaining grounds of appeal i.e. ground no. 3, 4, 5, 6 are taken together. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the assessment order passed by the AO was passed after adopting enquiry regarding sundry creditors and it was not the case that the assessment order was passed by the AO without any inquiry as far as sundry creditors is concerned. The Ld. AR of the assessee placed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of CIT vs. Vikas Polymers 194 taxman 0057 3. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the Ld. CIT, Merrut and stated that inquiries conducted by the Assessing Officer in respect of sundry creditors were inadequate having regard to facts and circumstances of the case. Regarding applicability of S. 50C on capital gains from sale of shops in Arunachal Building the Ld. CIT DR submitted that the Assessing Officer had failed to conduct inquiries in that regard. The Ld. CIT(DR) also filed submitted written submissions wherein reliance was placed on Malabar Ind. Co. Ltd. v/s CIT 243 ITR 83 (Supreme Court); Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. vs. Or. CIT 386 ITR 162 (Calcutta) and Rajmandir Estates (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT 77 taxmann.com 285 (Supreme Court). 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the revenue authorities especially the impugned order alongwith written submissions filed by both the parties as well as documentary evidences in the shape of paper book. We find that notice u/s 263 of I.T. Act, dated 21.3.2013 issued by the Ld. CIT under section 263(1) of I.T. Act had identified two issues for exercising revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of I. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing, New Delhi and secondly claimed that provision of section 50C were not attracted because no value had been adopted and assessed by the State Government authorities/ Stamp Valuation Authority, while clearly mentioning that the term or assessable was inserted after the term the value adopted or assessed w.e.f. 01.10.2009 (the transfer was effected on 03.1.2008 i.e. much prior to 01.10.2009). In support of his contention, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has also cited the decision of the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. R. Samantha Ravindran 352 ITR 488 wherein, it has been held that the value of property transferred prior to 01.10.2009 cannot be computed under amended provisions, which came into effect on 01.10.2009 (the word or assessable was inserted w.e.f. 01.10.2009). Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances as explained above and in view of the decision of the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. R. Samantha Ravindran (Supra), we are of the considered view that section 50C is not applicable in the case of the assessee. But the Ld. CIT has wrongly applied the same by ignoring the well reasoned order passed by the AO in the case of the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
