9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 442X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have considered the detailed explanation submitted before him and ought to have directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the sale consideration at Rs. 19 lakhs. 5. That on the facts and in law, Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in law in considering the value of circle rate as sales consideration at Rs. 46,39,000/- without appreciating the facts that the appellant has only sold the rights in the property on which section 50C is not applicable. 6. That on the facts and in law, the Ld. Assessing officer and ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in law in not having the valuation report of property from valuation officer as mandatorily required under the Act, therefore, order passed by the officers is not valid in law. 7. That the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, remove and modify any grounds of appeal, which are without prejudice to one another, before or at the time of hearing of the appeal." 2. The only effective ground in this appeal is against the sustaining of addition of Rs. 27,39,000/- i.e. difference between the sale consideration disclosed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE VI, KOLKATA VERSUS TEJINDER SINGH C.O NO. 62/KOL/2011 ARISING OUT OF I.T.A NO. 1457/KOL./2011; [vi] ATUL G. PURANIK VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER-12(1)(1) I.T.A NO. 3051/MUM/2010; [vii] KISHORI SHARAD GAITONDE VERSUS ITO WARD- 18(1)(1), MUMBAI ITA NO. 1561/M/09; [viii] ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-17(3) VERSUS M/S MUNSONS TEXTILES (2010) ITA NO. 6320/M/2010; [ix] COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-II, JAIPUR VERSUS SHRI SATYA DEV SHARMA, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJISTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 75/2014; and [x] JASTINER SINGH VEDI VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE-25(1), New Delhi (2011). 7. Ld. Sr. DR opposed these submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. 8. I have heard the contentions of the rival parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The undisputed facts in the present case are that the AO invoked provision of section 69A of the Act on the basis that there was a difference between sale consideration as disclosed by the assessee and the Circle rate as prevalent at that point of time. The AO has considered the difference amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In the above view, the question as framed by the Revenue does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained." 9. Further, the Division Bench of Tribunal in Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle VI, Kolkata versus Tejinder Singh C.O No. 62/Kol/2011 arising out of I.T.A No. 1457/Kol./2011 also ruled that where there is a transfer of lease hold rights, there would not be application of section 50C of the Act. The relevant contents of the order of the Tribunal in the case of Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle VI, Kolkata versus Tejinder Singh (supra) is reproduced hereunder:- 8. "A plain look at the undisputed facts of this case clearly shows that the assessee was a lessee in the property which was sold by the KSCT; there is no dispute on this aspect of the matter. Yet, the Assessing Officer has treated the assessee a seller of property apparently because the assessee was a party to the sale deed, and because, according to the Assessing Officer, "consideration is paid on sale of the property for giving up right of the owner of the property" and that "in the case of leasehold property, the right of owner is divided between lessor and les ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ic, could be treated as ownership rights. It has been specifically stated in the sale deed that the lessee, which included this assessee before us, had proceeded to, inter alia, "grant, convey, transfer and assign their leasehold rights, title and interest in the said premises ". There is nothing on the record to even remotely suggest that the assessee was owner of CO No. 62/Kol/2011 and I.T.A. No. :1459/Kol./2011 Assessment year : 2008 -09 the property in question. The monies received by the assessee, under the said agreement, were thus clearly in the nature of receipts for transfer of tenancy rights, and, accordingly, as the learned CIT(A) rightly holds, Section 50C could not have been invoked on the facts of this case. Revenue's contention that the provisions of Sect ion 50C also apply to the transfer of leasehold rights is devoid of legally sustainable merits and is not supported by the plain words of the statute. Section 50C can come into play only in a situation " where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or building or both, (emphasis supplied by us by underlining) is less than the value adopted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
