TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 770X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . No.37/Hyd/2020 (Arising out of ITA No.917/Hyd/2017) - - - Dated:- 15-4-2021 - Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member And Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member Assessee by : Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue by : Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT(DR) ORDER Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. This M.A. is filed by the assessee u/s 254(2) of the I.T. Act against the order of the Tribunal dated 29.10.2019. 2. This M.A. was required to be submitted on or before 30.04.2020. However, this M.A. was filed on 28.8.2020 i.e. beyond the time prescribed u/s 254(2) of the Act. However, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay stating that the delay is due to the COVID-19 lockdown by the Central Govt. in the entire country w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 was acted upon initially. c) As per the lease deed dated 17.3.2011 the lessee company agreed to pay lease rental of ₹ 24,434/- per acre per annum. d) The lessee company also agreed to pay advance lease rental for 99 years which works out to ₹ 10,67,53,833/-. This amount was not paid in cash/ cheque but was provided in the books of the company. e) The lessee company made an entry in the books of account by crediting the account of the petitioner i.e. D. Aparna Reddy with an amount of ₹ 9,60, 78,450/- and the balance of ₹ 1 ,06,75,383/-1 - is credited to the TDS account. The aggregate amount of ₹ 10,67,53,833/- was debited to the account Advance Lease Rental . f) As per the supplementar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . This amount was due and payable by the petitioner to the company. j) When the facts stood as mentioned above, the Assessing officer in the assessment order for the assessment year 2012-13 ====== held that it was a business transaction and difference between the advance lease rental and the cost was treated as the income from business. On an appeal filed, the learned CIT (Appeals) held that the said amount: can neither be assessed as a capital gain nor as income from business. This view of the CIT (Appeals) is accepted by the department and no appeal was filed. k) However, the learned CIT (Appeals) took an altogether different view holding that the value of shares allotted on 31.1.2011, 2.4.2011 and the TDS represent the income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TAT discussed the issue at para No.15 pages No.13 to 16 of the Order. The Hon'ble ITAT held that the provisions of Sec. 56(2) (vii)( c) (i) of the I.T Act are not applicable to the facts of the case. However, at para No.16 in the first three lines, the Hon'ble ITAT mentioned as under: As regards amount of Rs.l,06,75,383/- which was retained towards the TDS brought to tax as 'income from other sources'. The addition to that extent is confirmed . 4. It. is humbly submitted that the TDS is a part of lease rental. It was not paid by the company Sai Sudhir Energy Limited to the Government account. The amount of Rs.l,06,75,383/ - initially credited to the TDS account by the company by debiting Advance Lease Rentals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so far as the balance of ₹ 9,60,78,257/- is concerned, the Hon'ble Tribunal held that the provisions of Sec. 56(2) (vii)( c) (i) of the I.T. Act have no application and held that such amount cannot be treated as income of the petitioner as such amount is not received by the petitioner. The Hon'ble ITAT should have considered the fact. that even TDS amount was not received by the assessee nor is credited to the account of the assessee. In view of the above, the petitioner submits that there is an error in the order of the Hon'ble ITAT dated 29.10.2019 which may kindly be considered and appropriate orders be passed rectifying the mistake . 5. The learned Counsel for the assessee tried to point out that the Tribunal has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
