Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Kanpur V. Shri M/s Kartikeya International, Kanpur

ITA 101/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 10123714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 18-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 20-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R R JAIN
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.101/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 SHRI M/S. KARTIKEYA INTERNATIONAL, 113/105, SWAROOP NAGAR, KANPUR-208002 VS DCIT - II, KANPUR PAN AADFK 4969 K (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SMT. ALKA SINGH, DR APPELLANT BY SHRI R. R. JAIN, CA RESPONDENT BY 18/11/2015 DATE OF HEARING 15/01/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A)-II, KANPUR DATED 29.11.2013 FOR AY 2010-11. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER: 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-II, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 73,88,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THE HEAD SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN BY APPLYING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF INCOME TAX AC T, 1961 ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT THE OWNER OF THE LAND BUT WAS ONLY THE HOLDER OF LEASE HOLD IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE PERUSAL OF SALE DEED OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AT DADA NAGAR, KANPUR CLEARLY 2 REVEALS THAT THE DOCUMENT IS 'SALE DEED' OF IMMOVAB LE PROPERTY. 2. THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-II, KANPUR DATED 29.11.2013 NEEDS TO BE QUASHED AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 09.08.2012 BE RESTOR ED. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL MENTIONED ABOVE AND/OR TO ADD ANY FRESH GROUNDS AS AND WHEN IT IS REQUIRED TO DO SO. 3. LD. DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. C IT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE TRIBUNALS ORDER RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. SHRI HARI OM GUPTA IN ITA NO. 222/LKW/2013 DATED 03.11.2015. HE SUBMITTED THAT CO PY OF THIS TRIBUNALS ORDER IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIN D THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS REGARDING INVOKING OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, IN RESPECT OF TRANSFER OF LEASE HOLD RIGHT. IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. SHRI HARI OM GUPTA (SUPRA) ALSO, TH E ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS REGARDING INVOKING OF PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 50C OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF TRANSFER OF LEASE HOLD RIGHT AND AS PER PARA 11 OF THIS TRIBUNALS ORDER, IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT CANNOT BE INVOKED IN RESPECT OF TRANSFER OF LEA SE HOLD RIGHT. WHILE DEALING SO, THE TRIBUNAL HAS FOLLOWED VARIOUS TRIBU NALS ORDERS, PARTICULARLY THE ORDER OF PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF KANCAST INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 1265/LKW/2011. RESPECTFULLY FOLL OWING THIS TRIBUNALS ORDER RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. SHRI HARI OM GUPTA (SUPRA) AND IN TURN FOLLOWING OTHER TRIBUNALS ORDERS FOLLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THIS CASE, 3 WE HOLD THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE O RDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN THE PRESENT CASE. HENCE, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (A.K. GAROD IA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 15 /01/2016 AKS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1.THE APPELLANT 2.THE RESPONDENT. 3.CONCERNED CIT 4.THE CIT(A) 5.D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR