Income-tax Officer, V. Lokseva Pratishthan, Pune

ITA 2018/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2832 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 13-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DHEERAJ KUMAR JAIN
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Maximum Marginal Rate; Non-deduction of tax
• Section: 12A; 201(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE , !, # $ BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM ITA NO.2018/PN/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (TDS)-2, PUNE. . APPELLANT VS. LOKSEVA PRATISHTHAN, 430, MANGALWAR PETH, NARPATGIRI CORNER, PUNE 411 011. PAN : AAATL4203A . RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI DHEERAJ KUMAR JAIN / RESPONDENT BY : NONE / DATE OF HEARING : 03.02.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 10.02.2016 % / ORDER PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM : THE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINS T THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-V, PUNE DATED 25.08.2014 RELATING TO ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2013-14 PASSED UNDER SECTION 201(1)/201(1A) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 01 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) ERRED IN DELETING THE DEMAND RAISED OF RS 6260973/- U/S 201(1)/201(1A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 IN RESPECT OF LEASE PREMIUM PAID TO PIMPRI CHINCHWAD N EW TOWNSHIP DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. 02 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE LEASE PREMIUM PAID TO PCNTDA WAS COVERED BY THE DEFINITION OF RENT AS PER PROVISO OF SECTION 194I OF THE ACT. 2 ITA NO.2018/PN/2014 03 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE DEED ENTERED INTO THE DEDUCTOR WI TH PCNTDA WAS NOT A TRANSFER DEED BUT A LEASE DEED AND EXPLANATION TO SECTION 19 4I CLEARLY STIPULATES THAT ANY PAYMENT BY WHATEVER NAME CALLED UNDER ANY LEASE AGR EEMENT IS TO BE TAKEN AS RENT FOR TDS PURPOSE. 04 THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY OR ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. THE SOLITARY ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS APPLICATION OF SECTION 194I OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE LEASE PREMIUM PAI D TO PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWNSHIP DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (PCNTDA) AND CORRECT NESS OF CONSEQUENT ACTION UNDER SECTION 201(1)/201(1A) OF THE ACT. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE INSPITE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE, SHRI DHEERAJ KUMAR JAIN APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT/REV ENUE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY APPEARANCE BY THE ASSESSEE IN PERSON OR THROUGH AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE INSPITE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE, WE PRO CEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE AFTER HEARING THE RESPONDENT/REVENUE ON MERITS IN TERMS OF RULE 24 OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBU NAL) RULES, 1963. 5. BRIEFLY STATED, THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE A RE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CHARITABLE TRUST WHICH IS RUNNING A SCHOOL. THE AS SESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO 99 YEARS LEASE AGREEMENT THROUGH ITS FOUNDER PRESIDENT , SHRI DEEPAK PAIGUNDE WITH PCNTDA FOR USING AREA OF 4547.8 SQ.MTRS. OF LA ND LOCATED AT PLOT NO.1, SECTOR NO.16, TAL. HAVELI, DIST. PUNE WITHIN THE VI LLAGE LIMITS OF BHOSARI, TALUKA HAVELI, DIST. PUNE. THE SAID LAND COULD BE USED FOR PRIMARY SCHOOL PURPOSES AS PER CLAUSE (N) OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID LAND LEASE PREMIUM OF RS.5,59,01,558/- AND AGREED TO PAY SUM OF RS.100/- PER ANNUM FOR THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF LEASE. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER CONSIDERED THE SAID PAYMENT OF RS.5,59,01,558/- AS RENT IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194I OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLEGED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TDS ON IMPUGNED RENT IN TERMS OF SECTION 1 94I OF THE ACT. FOR SUCH NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE, THE ASSESSEE WAS HE LD TO BE LIABLE TO CONSEQUENCES PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 201(1) AND SECT ION 201(1A) OF THE ACT. 3 ITA NO.2018/PN/2014 ACCORDINGLY, DEMAND UNDER SECTION 201(1) OF THE ACT WAS RAISED AT RS.55,90,155/- AND INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) O F THE ACT WAS RAISED AT RS.6,70,818/-. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) DEL ETED THE AFORESAID IMPUGNED DEMAND MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY FO LLOWING VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS OF MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, ESPECIA LLY, IN THE CASE OF NAVI MUMBAI SEZ (P) LTD. IN ITA NO.738 TO 7741/MUM/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2009-10, ORDER DATED 12.08.2013. 7. AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ACTION OF THE CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. WE FIND THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE AS RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL AROSE BEFORE THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE SHRI VIJAY N. KODNANI IN ITA NO.10/PN/2014, ORDER DATED 31.03.201 5 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLL OWING THE EARLIER DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE RELEVANT PARAS OF THE ORDER OF T HE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI VIJAY N. KODNANI (SUPRA) ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER F OR READY REFERENCE :- 5. WE FIND THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE AS RAISED IN TH E PRESENT APPEAL, AROSE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ITO (TDS) VS. PREETAM MEDICAL FOUND ATION & RESEARCH CENTRE, IN ITA NO.190/PN/2014, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 201 3-14, VIDE ORDER DATE 16.01.2015, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER:- 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IN RELATION TO THE DEMAND RAISED UNDER SECTIONS 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT O F THE LEASE PREMIUM PAID TO PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWNSHIP DEVELOPMENT AUTHOR ITY (PCNTDA). IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAD E NTERED INTO 99 YEARS LEASE AGREEMENT THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN WITH PCNTDA FOR USIN G 3261 SQ. MTRS. OF LAND LOCATED ON PLOT NO.1, IN SECTOR 13, CHIKHALI, TALUKA HAVELI, PUNE. THE SAID LAND WAS TO BE USED FOR EDUCATION PURPOSES AS PER CLAUSE (N) OF THE LEASE DEED. THE ASSESSEE PAID LEASE PREMIUM OF RS. 1,37,36,963/- FOR THE SAID PLOT AND FURTHER AGREED TO PAY SUM OF RS.100/- PER ANNUM FOR THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF LEASE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (TDS) WAS O F THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194 I OF THE ACT AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT OF LEASE PREMIUM TO PCNTDA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO ISSUED SUMMONS TO THE DEDUCTOR. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT TH E TRANSACTION BETWEEN IT 4 ITA NO.2018/PN/2014 AND PCNTDA WAS A TRANSACTION OF SALE AND FURTHER AP PROPRIATE TAX RETURN HAD BEEN FILED BY IT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE PARTIES WAS NOT THAT OF TRA NSFER, BUT OF LEASE AND THERE WAS NO TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY, BUT THE SAME WAS LEASED FOR USE EITHER FOR COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL PURPOS ES AS APPROVED BY THE LESSOR. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRED TO THE VARIOUS RESTRICTIONS ON THE LESSEE / ASSESSEE PUT UP BY THE LESSOR AND I T WAS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THIS WAS NOT A CASE OF FREEH OLD TRANSFER OR SALE AND THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT THE ABSOLUTE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY . THE ASSESSING OFFICER THUS, CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO DED UCT TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194 I OF THE ACT ON THE LEASE PREMIUM PAID TO PCNTDA. THE ASSESSEE HAVING FAILED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE, WAS HELD TO BE IN DEFAULT UNDER SECTION 201(1) OF THE ACT AT RS.13,73,696/- A ND FURTHER INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT WAS CHARGED AT RS.82,416 /-. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY CHENNAI BENCH OF THE TRIB UNAL IN FOXCONN INDIA DEVELOPER (P) LTD. VS. ITO (TDS) (SUPRA). 6. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, OBSERVED THAT NO DOUBT, AFTER 99 YEARS OF LEASE, TH E LEASE HOLD RIGHT EXPIRED AND THE LESSOR WAS VESTED WITH THE FULL RIGHTS ON T HE SAID PLOT OF LAND, WITH THE OPTION EITHER TO RENEW THE LEASE FOR FURTHER PE RIOD AND TAKE BACK THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND. HOWEVER, THE PRELIMINARY C LAUSE OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT REFLECTS THAT THE PAYMENT OF LEASE PREMIU M WAS A PRE-CONDITION FOR ENTERING INTO LEASE AGREEMENT. THE CIT(A) HAS REPRODUCED THE PRELIMINARY CLAUSE OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT AT PAGE 7 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER, WHICH ARE NOT BEING REPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE OF BREV ITY. THE CIT(A) THUS, HELD THAT THE PAYMENT OF LEASE PREMIUM OF RS.1,37,3 6,963/- WAS A PRE- CONDITION FOR ENTERING INTO THE LEASE AGREEMENT AND THE SAME WAS NOT UNDER THE LEASE DEED, THEREFORE, THE PAYMENT OF LEASE PRE MIUM FELL OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF DEFINITION OF RENT AS PROVIDED UNDER SEC TION 194 I OF THE ACT. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT BY THE CIT(A) THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE RELIANCE PLACED UPON THE DECISION OF CHENNAI BENCH OF THE TR IBUNAL IN FOXCONN INDIA DEVELOPER (P) LTD. VS. ITO (TDS) (SUPRA) AS THE SAM E WAS DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL, THE ISSUE IN QUESTION WAS UPFRONT PAYMENT OF LEASE AND FURTHER THE SAID U PFRONT PAYMENT WAS PART OF THE CONDITIONS FOR ACQUIRING LEASEHOLD RIGHTS, U NLIKE THE PRESENT CASE WHERE, THE PAYMENT OF LEASE PREMIUM WAS A PRE-CONDI TION FOR ENTERING INTO A LEASE AGREEMENT. THE CIT(A) PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN NAVI MUMBAI SEZ(P) LTD IN ITA NO.738 TO 7741/MUM/2012, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2009-10, VIDE ORDER DATED 12.08.2013, IN ORDER TO HOLD THAT THE P AYMENT OF LEASE PREMIUM TO PCNTDA BEING A PRE-CONDITION FOR ENTERING INTO L EASE AGREEMENT, COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE PAID UNDER THE TERMS OF LEASE AGR EEMENT. FURTHER, STAMP DUTY HAD BEEN PAID ON THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PLOT REPRESENTED BY LEASE PREMIUM. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WA S DIRECTED TO DELETE THE DEMAND CREATED UNDER SECTIONS 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT. 7. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS SQUAR ELY COVERED BY THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRI BUNAL IN ITO VS. CAMP EDUCATION SOCIETY (SUPRA), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS U NDER:- 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE WAS AN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE WAS RUNNING VARIOUS SCHOO LS AND COLLEGES IN THE CITY OF PUNE. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION, IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH ANOTHER SCHOOL IN PIMPRI CHINCHWAD AREA, THE ASSESSEE IN REPLY TO AN ADVERTISEMENT BY PCNTDA, APPLIED FOR A PLOT ON 5 ITA NO.2018/PN/2014 LEASEHOLD BASIS. AS PER THE BID DOCUMENT, WHERE TH E BID QUOTED BY A PARTY ACCEPTED, THE SAID PARTY WAS REQUIRED TO PAY THE QUOTED AMOUNT I.E. THE PREMIUM WITHIN 3 MONTHS OF THE LETTER OF A LLOTMENT. IN CASE SUCH PREMIUM WAS NOT PAID WITHIN PERIOD OF 3 MONTHS , 25% OF THE TENDER DEPOSIT WAS TO BE FORTIFIED AND BALANCE AMOU NT WAS TO BE REFUNDED WITHOUT ANY INTEREST. THE TENDER DOCUMENT STATED THAT THE TENDER WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SALE OF RESERVED PLOT S AND AS PER THE DOCUMENT FULL PREMIUM WAS TO BE PAID TO PCNTDA AND LEASE AGREEMENT WOULD BE ENTERED WITH THE PARTY. THE ASS ESSEE ENTERED INTO A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH PCNTDA FOR 99 YEARS AND THE LEASE RENT WAS RS.100/- PER ANNUM FOR THE PERIOD OF 99 YEARS. THE ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY, DEPOSITED THE PREMIUM AMOUNT OF RS.2,2 0,24,860/-. AFTER RECEIVING THE PREMIUM AMOUNT, THE LICENSER I. E. PCNTDA AGREED TO EXECUTE LEASE DEED TO CONVEY / TRANSFER / ASSIGN THE LEASEHOLD RIGHTS. THE LEASE DEED AUTHORIZES THE AS SESSEE TO BUILD / CONSTRUCT ANY BUILDING ON THE SAID PLOT OF LAND. T HE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE PAYMENT OF PREMIUM WAS A PRE- CONDITION FOR OBTAINING THE LEASE RIGHTS AND IT WAS ONLY AFTER PA YMENT OF THE LEASE PREMIUM, THE LEASE AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO AND B UNDLE OF RIGHTS WERE OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THE ASSESSEE TO BE DE FAULT IN RESPECT OF THE TDS PAYABLE ON SUCH LEASE RENT PAYME NT TO PCNTDA. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE C HENNAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN FOX CONN INDIA DEVELOPER (P) LTD. ( SUPRA). THE ASSESSEE WAS HELD TO BE IN DEFAULT FOR NON-DEDUCTIO N OF TAX ON SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194I OF THE ACT ON THE LEASE PREMIUM PAID TO PCNTDA AND DEMAND UNDER SECTION 201(1) OF THE ACT WAS RAIS ED AND INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT WAS CHARGED, RAISI NG A DEMAND OF RS.22,90,585/-. 8. THE CIT(A) VIDE PARA 8 REFERRED TO THE PRELIMINA RY CLAUSES OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND PCN TDA AND POINTED OUT THAT THE LEASE PREMIUM FINDS MENTION IN THE LEASE DEED BUT THE SAID PAYMENT OF LEASE PREMIUM WAS A PRE-CON DITION FOR ENTERING INTO LEASE AGREEMENT. THE CIT(A) THUS, HE LD THAT SAME WAS NOT UNDER THE LEASE DEED AND THE PAYMENT OF LEASE P REMIUM FALLS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF DEFINITION OF RENT AS SPECIF IED IN SECTION 194I OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED FROM THE RATI O LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF FOX CONN INDIA DEVELOPER (P) LTD. (SUPRA) W AS DISTINGUISHABLE ON THE FACTS AS IN THAT CASE ISSUE IN QUESTION WAS UPFRONT PAYMENT AND NOT LEASE PREMIUM. FURTHER, UP FRONT PAYMENT WAS PART OF CONSIDERATION FOR ACQUIRING LEASEHOLD R IGHTS UNLIKE THE PRESENT CASE WHERE PAYMENT OF LEASE PREMIUM WAS PRE -CONDITION FOR ENTERING INTO LEASE AGREEMENT AND THEREFORE THE FAC TS OF THE CASE WERE CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE. FURTHER RELIANCE WAS PLAC ED ON THE SERIES OF DECISIONS, UNDER WHICH SUCH SIMILAR PAYMENT OF LEAS E PREMIUM WAS HELD TO BE NOT SUBJECT TO DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURC E UNDER SECTION 194I OF THE ACT. 9. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE OF PAYMENT OF LEASE P REMIUM AROSE BEFORE THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF NAVI MUMBAI SEZ (P) LTD. IN ITA NOS.738 TO 740/MUM/2012 FOR ASS ESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2009-10, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORD ER DATED 12.08.2013, HELD THAT LEASE PREMIUM PAID BY THE ASS ESSEE TO THE CITY AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF MAHARASHT RA LTD. (CIDCO) FOR ACQUIRING DEVELOPMENT AND LEASEHOLD RIG HTS FOR A 6 ITA NO.2018/PN/2014 PERIOD OF 60 YEARS, WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE SUBJECT TO DEDUCTION AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194I OF THE ACT. FURTHER ANOT HER BENCH OF THE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. WADHWA ASSOCIAT ES IN ITA NO.695/MUM/2012, VIDE ORDER DATED 03.07.2013, HELD THAT TDS WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED UNDER SECTION 194I OF T HE ACT IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT OF LEASE PREMIUM TO M/S. MMRD LTD. 10. IN VIEW OF ABOVE SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WHEREIN THE LEASE PREMIUM WAS PAID TO PCNTDA BY THE ASSESSEE AS A PRE- CONDITION FOR ENTERING INTO A LEASE AGREEMENT, THE SAME CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN PAID CONSEQUENT TO THE LEASE AGRE EMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PARTIES. FURTHER, THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT STAMP DUTY HAD BEEN PAID ON THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PLOT REPRESENTED BY THE LEASE PREMIUM, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERT ED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE. RELYI NG UPON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN TH REE DIFFERENT CASES, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN HOLDING THA T THE LEASE PREMIUM PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 194I OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIF IED IN RAISING THE DEMAND UNDER SECTION 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE THUS, DISMISSED. 8. FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING, WE HOLD THAT WHERE THE LEASE PREMIUM PAID TO PCNTDA WAS A PRE-CONDITION FOR ENTE RING INTO THE LEASE AGREEMENT, THE SAME NOT BEING PAID CONSEQUENT TO TH E EXECUTION OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT, CANNOT BE SAID TO BE PAYMENT IN LIEU OF RENT AS ENVISAGED UNDER SECTION 194 I OF THE ACT. IN ADDITION, THE ASSESSE E HAD PAID STAMP DUTY ON THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PLOT REPRESENTED BY THE LEASE P REMIUM AND THE SAID FINDING OF THE CIT(A) HAVING NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE, WE FIN D NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE O RDER OF CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE . 6. FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING, WE UPHOL D THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE . 9. FOLLOWING THE PARITY OF REASONING, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REV ENUE. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 10 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE ; DATED : 10 TH FEBRUARY, 2016. 7 ITA NO.2018/PN/2014 % & '() *)' / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1) THE ASSESSEE; 2) THE DEPARTMENT; 3) THE CIT(A)-V, PUNE; 4) THE CIT-V, PUNE; 5) THE DR A BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. %+ / BY ORDER , ' # //TRUE COPY// $ %& # '( / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ) '* , / ITAT, PUNE