TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 1140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here is in fact a lease. In the instant case, the assessee is a statutory body constituted u/s 5 of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development (IIADB Act), 1966. The KIADB Act, 1966 is a special Act, which provides for expeditious acquisition of land for industrial and infrastructure purposes. The Income Tax Authorities has not doubted the legal effect of the lease deed (being unregistered one). When the lease is transfer of right to enjoy the property, such transfer can be made expressly or by implication. The mere fact that it is an unregistered lease deed would not stand in the way to determine whether in fact it was a transfer of property under lease - Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. - ITA No.661/Bang/2014 (Asst.Year 2010-2011 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this account. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. On further appeal, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the addition of ₹ 1.74 crore. The relevant finding of the ITAT reads as follow:- 7.5 We have heard the rival submissions as well as considered the relevant material on record. There is no dispute that the amount in question which has been added by the Assessing Officer on account of under statement of income pertains to the lease rentals received by the assessee for allotment of land on lease. The assessee contended that this is not a sale of land but it is a transaction of lease of land and therefore only proportionate rental amount has been accounted by the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case to the ITAT. The judgment of the Hon ble High Court read as follows:- 2. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act , for short) has been filed by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2010-11. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.08.2017 on the following substantial question of law: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting addition of ₹ 1.74 crores on account of lumpsum leasing charges received by the assessee even though the Auditor has pointed out under-statement of the income to the tune of ₹ 5.81 crores by the assessee and, as su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. The learned Departmental Representative relied on the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). 6. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The limited issue for our consideration subsequent to the remand by the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court is the efficacy of registration of lease deed and the impact of the same when it is unregistered one. In this context, the Hon ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. C.F.Raju (supra) had followed the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Anthony v. K.C.Ittoop Sons (2000) (6) SCC 394 and held that even though the lease deed is unregistered, the same would not stand in the way to determine whether there is in fact a lease. The relevant finding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to enjoy the property, such transfer can be made expressly or by implication. The mere fact that it is an unregistered lease deed would not stand in the way to determine whether in fact it was a transfer of property under lease. In this context, we rely on the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Anthony v. K.C.Ittoop Sons (supra), and the judgment of the Hon ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. C.F.Raju (supra). 6.2 The other issues decided by the ITAT in its order dated 20.04.2016 has not been set aside by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in its judgment dated 07.12.2020. Therefore, we hold that since the assessee was consistently declaring the lease rentals / deposits as income on proportionate basis in accordan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
