DCIT, CHENNAI V. India Poultry Farm, Trichy

ITA 1634/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8044 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 30-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 08-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 92

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NOS. 1633 & 1634/MDS/2013 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2001-02 & 2002-03 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-IV (1), NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI 34 V. M/S.INDIA POULTRY FARM, NO.45, NSB ROAD, TRICHY - 2 PAN: AAAFT9753D ( ! /APPELLANT) ( '# ! /RESPONDENT) ! $ /APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.V. SHREEKANTH, JCIT '# ! $ /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE $ /DATE OF HEARING : 30.11.2016 $ /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.01.2017 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAI NST THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 & 2002-0 3. THEREFORE WE HEARD BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE TOGETHER A ND DISPOSING OF THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2 I.T.A. NOS.1633 & 1634/MDS/2013 2. SHRI A.V. SHREEKANTH, LD. DEPARTMENT REPRESENTAT IVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERAT ION IS COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN IN RESPECT OF TRANSFER OF BUILDING. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE, THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE EARLIER ROUND OF LITIGATION IN ITA NOS.234 & 235/MDS/2012 DATED 18.0 5.2012 FOUND THAT IT WAS NEVER THE INTENTION OF THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM TO TREAT THE LAND IN QUESTION AS OWNED BY THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM. HOWEVER, IN RESPECT OF BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENTAL WORK THE MATT ER WAS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT (APPEALS). THE CIT (AP PEALS) FOUND THAT WHATEVER RATIO APPLICABLE TO LAND HAS ALSO EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENTAL WORKS SAID TO BE CARRIED ON. THE LD. DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE BUILDI NG AND DEVELOPMENTAL WORK CARRIED ON THE LAND HAS TO BE TR EATED SEPARATELY AND THEREFORE THE PROFIT ON TRANSFER OF BUILDING IS LIABLE FOR CAPITAL GAIN. 3. WE HEARD SHRI S. SRIDHAR, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE ALSO. IN THE EARLIER ROUND OF LITIGATION THIS TRIBUNAL FO UND THAT CAPITAL TAX CANNOT BE LEVIED ON THE PROFIT ARISING OUT OF TRANS FER OF LAND. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 18 .05.2012 ATTAINS FINALITY. THEREFORE AS RIGHTLY OBSERVED BY THE CIT (APPEALS) THAT THE 3 I.T.A. NOS.1633 & 1634/MDS/2013 RATIO WHICH IS APPLICABLE FOR THE TRANSFER OF LAND IN QUESTION IS ALSO EQUALLY APPLICABLE FOR THE BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT AL WORKS SAID TO BE CARRIED ON. THEREFORE THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIN D ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 4. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ST ANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 25 TH JANUARY 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( . . . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) (N.R.S. GANESA N) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, /DATED, THE 25 TH JANUARY 2017. JR. $ ' % & % /COPY TO: 1. ! /APPELLANT 2. '# ! /RESPONDENT 3. '() ( )/CIT(A) 4. '() /CIT, 5. ' % /DR 6. *+ /GF.