9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: "1 On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee has not transferred the Tenancy Rights but the ownership rights in property under the disguise of Deed for Transfer of Tenancy Rights. 2. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the order passed u/s 154 on receipt of the DVO's report, which reiterates that there was transfer of ownership rights and not the tenancy rights. 3. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the reference to DVO was made for det ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation Authority was Rs. 13,07,25,000/-. It was observed by the A.O that the assessee along with his brother enjoyed equal ½ share in the aforesaid property. Observing that the assessee while computing his income under head Long Term Capital Gain (for short "LTCG") had taken the sale consideration as per the "agreement" and not the market value that was adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority for the purpose of registration of the transfer deed, the A.O called upon him to explain as to why the LTCG may not be recalculated as per Sec. 50C of the Act by taking the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority i.e Rs. 13,07,25,000/- as the deemed sale consideration. In reply, it was submitted by the assessee that as it had transferred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ownership rights and not property rights thus, the stamp duty value of Rs. 13,07,25,000/- was the market value of the property i.e ownership rights and not the tenancy rights. Observing, that the assessee was holding the property in question in perpetuity, the A.O was also of the view that the same was akin to having the rights as the owner of the property. Backed by his aforesaid conviction, the A.O called upon the assessee to explain as to why the LTCG on the transfer of the aforesaid property in question may not be recomputed as per the provision of Sec. 50C of the Act. As the reply filed by the assessee did not find favour with the A.O, he therein recomputed the LTCG as regards the transfer transaction of the property in question by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to whether the tenancy rights in perpetuity would fall within the realm of Sec. 50C of the Act, or not. Backed by his aforesaid deliberations, the CIT(A) taking cognizance of the fact that the valuation of the tenancy rights of the property in question fairly matched with that reflected by the assessee thus, directed the A.O to adopt the figure as disclosed by the assessee after ignoring the marginal difference of 2.81%. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed by the first appellate authority. 5. The revenue being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. We have heard the authorised representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the materi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mined the fair market value (of the tenancy rights of the property in question) at Rs. 5,19,20,500/-, as against that taken by the assessee at an amount of Rs. 5,05,00,000/-. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, there remains no doubt that the conviction that had weighed in the mind of the A.O while framing the assessment was that the assessee had transferred the "tenancy rights" of the property in question. At the same time, we cannot also remain oblivious of the fact that the A.O was of the view that holding of tenancy rights in perpetuity of a property was akin to ownership rights. But then, the fact as it so remains is that the A.O undoubtedly had proceeded with and framed the assessment in the backdrop of the fact that the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us. Admittedly, as had been deliberated at length by us hereinabove, the assessee had vide a "deed for transfer of tenancy rights", dated 17.09.2013 transferred his share of "tenancy rights" of the property in question viz. Flat at Shakuntala, Worli CPhase, Mumbai for a consideration of Rs. 5,05,00,000/-. As is discernible from the orders of the lower authorities, the A.O had brought the aforesaid transfer transaction within the realm of Sec. 50C of the Act. Although, a reference for valuation of the "tenancy rights" of the property in question was made in the course of the assessment proceedings by the A.O to the District Valuation Officer-II, Mumbai however, the report, dated 01.06.2017 was received from him only after the culmination of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
