Income-tax Officer, V. Shri anand H. Bansal, Pune

ITA 2234/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 93761 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 27-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P S NAIK
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL PATHAK
• Keywords: Maximum Marginal Rate; Non-deduction of tax
• Section: 12A; 201(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2234/PN/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) ITO (TDS)-1, PUNE .. APPELLANT VS. SHRI ANAND H. BANSAL, PROP. BANSAL ENTERPRISES, TERMAX CHOWK, TELCO ROAD, CHINCHWAD, PUNE 411019 .. RESPONDENT PAN NO.AARPA0440R APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUNIL PATHAK DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI P.S. NAIK DATE OF HEARING : 27-05-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29-05-2015 ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-V, PUNE DATED 08-10-2013 FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2011-12 PASSED U/S.201(1)/201(1A) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN APPEAL IS DELE TING OF DEMAND OF RS.41,63,359 U/S.201(1)/201(1A) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE LEASE PREMIUM PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSES SEE TO PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWNSHIP DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (IN SHORT PCNTDA). 3. SHRI P.S. NAIK, REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT TH AT THE LEASE PREMIUM PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO PCNTDA IS UPFRONT PAYMENT AS PRE-CONDITION FOR ENTERING INTO LEASE AGREEMEN T. HE 2 SUBMITTED THAT THE DEED ENTERED INTO BY THE DEDUCTOR WITH PCNTDA WAS NOT A TRANSFER DEED BUT A LEASE DEED. EXP LANATION TO SECTION 194I CLEARLY STIPULATES THAT ANY PAYMENT BY WHATEVER NAME CALLED UNDER ANY LEASE DEED/AGREEMENT IS TO BE TAK EN AS RENT FOR TDS PURPOSE. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTA TIVE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND PRAYED FOR SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 4. SHRI SUNIL PATHAK, AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN APPEAL HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE TR IBUNAL IN APPEALS OF VARIOUS ASSESSEES. THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY HOLDING THAT LEASE PREMIUM PAID TO PCNTDA IS NO T A PAYMENT IN LIEU OF RENT AS ENVISAGED U/S.194I OF THE ACT. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE PLACED RE LIANCE ON THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.10/PN/2014 IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. SHRI VIJAY N. KODNAN I FOR A.Y. 20011-12 DECIDED ON 31-03-2015. THE LD. AUTHORIS ED REPRESENTATIVE PRAYED FOR CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED ORDER A ND DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE ALSO EXAMINED THE DECISION ON WHICH THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE. 6. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE : DURING THE COURSE OF TDS VERIFICATION IN THE CASE OF PCNTDA IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO LEASE A GREEMENT FOR 99 YEARS WITH PCNTDA VIDE LEASE DEED DATED 20-07-20 10 IN 3 RESPECT OF PLOT NO. 3 IN SECTOR 29. THE ASSESSING OFFICER H ELD THAT ON THE LEASE PAYMENT, THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO DE DUCT TAX AT SOURCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 19 4-I OF THE ACT. THE STAND OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE PREMIUM PAID FOR ACQUIRING LEASE HOLD RIGHTS FOR 99 YEARS IS AKIN TO PAYMEN T OF RENT. ACCORDINGLY, DEMAND U/S.201(1)/201(1A) OF THE ACT WAS RAISED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. IN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST A PPEAL AUTHORITY THE MATTER WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESS EE. THE CIT(A) AFTER ANALYSING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194-I AN D THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF NAVI MUMBAI SEZ(P) LTD. IN ITA NOS.738 TO 741/MUM/2012 FOR A.Y. 2006-07 TO 2009-10 DELETED THE DEMAND RAISED U/S.201(1)/201(1A). 6.1 WE OBSERVE THAT THE ISSUE IN APPEAL HAS BEEN AGITA TED EARLIER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN APPEALS OF VARIOUS ASSESSEES . THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY HOLDING THAT THE PAYMENT OF LEASE RENTALS TO PCNTDA DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTIO N 194I OF THE ACT. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF TH E ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE RECENT DECISION OF TH E COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF VIJAY N. KODNANI (SUPRA). IN THE SAID CASE, THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWED THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF ITO (TDS) VS. PREETAM MEDICAL FOUNDATION & RESEARCH CENTRE IN ITA NO.190/PN/2014 DECIDED ON 16-01 -2015 AND ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL READS AS UNDER : 5. WE FIND THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE AS RAISED IN TH E PRESENT APPEAL, AROSE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ITO (TDS) VS. PREETAM MEDICAL FOUNDATION & RESEARCH CENTRE, IN ITA NO.190 /PN/2014, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, VIDE ORDER DAT E 16.01.2015, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER:- 4 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEA L IS IN RELATION TO THE DEMAND RAISED UNDER SECTIONS 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE LEASE PREMIUM PAID TO PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWNSHIP DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (PCNTDA). IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO 99 YEARS LEASE AGREEMENT THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN WITH PCNTDA FOR USING 3261 SQ. MTRS. OF LAND LOCATED ON PLOT NO.1, IN SECTOR 13, C HIKHALI, TALUKA HAVELI, PUNE. THE SAID LAND WAS TO BE USED FOR EDUCATION PURPOSES AS PER CLAUSE (N) OF THE LEASE D EED. THE ASSESSEE PAID LEASE PREMIUM OF RS.1,37,36,963/- FOR THE SAID PLOT AND FURTHER AGREED TO PAY SUM OF RS.1 00/- PER ANNUM FOR THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF LEASE. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER (TDS) WAS OF 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 PCNT DA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO ISSUED SUMMONS TO THE DEDUCTOR. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN IT AND PCNTDA WAS A TRANSACTION OF SALE AND FURTHER APPROPRIATE TAX RETURN HAD BEEN FILED BY IT . THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE TRANSACT ION BETWEEN THE PARTIES WAS NOT THAT OF TRANSFER, BUT O F LEASE AND THERE WAS NO TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPE RTY, BUT THE SAME WAS LEASED FOR USE EITHER FOR COMMERCI AL OR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES AS APPROVED BY THE LESSOR. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRED TO THE VARI OUS RESTRICTIONS ON THE LESSEE / ASSESSEE PUT UP BY THE LESSOR AND IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT T HIS WAS NOT A CASE OF FREEHOLD TRANSFER OR SALE AND THE ASS ESSEE WAS NOT THE ABSOLUTE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THUS, CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO DEDUCT 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/- AND FURTHER INTEREST UNDER SECTION 2 01(1A) OF THE ACT WAS CHARGED AT RS.82,416/-. RELIANCE WA S PLACED ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY CHENNAI BENCH OF T HE TRIBUNAL IN FOXCONN INDIA DEVELOPER (P) LTD. VS. IT O (TDS) (SUPRA). 6. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, OBSERVED THAT NO DOUBT, AFTE R 99 YEARS OF LEASE, THE LEASE HOLD RIGHT EXPIRED AND TH E LESSOR WAS VESTED WITH THE FULL RIGHTS ON THE 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 CLAUSE OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT REFLECTS THAT THE PAYMENT OF LEASE PREMIUM WAS A PRE-CONDITION FOR ENTERING INTO LEASE AGREEMENT. THE CIT(A) HAS REPRODUCED THE PRELIMINARY CLAUSE OF THE LEASE AGRE EMENT AT PAGE 7 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER, WHICH ARE NOT BEI NG REPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. THE CIT(A) THU S, HELD THAT THE PAYMENT OF LEASE PREMIUM OF RS.1,37,36,963 /- WAS A PRE-CONDITION FOR ENTERING INTO THE LEASE AGR EEMENT AND THE SAME WAS NOT UNDER THE LEASE DEED, THEREFOR E, THE PAYMENT OF LEASE PREMIUM FELL OUTSIDE THE PURVI EW OF DEFINITION OF RENT AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 194 I OF THE 5 ACT. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT BY THE CIT(A) THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE RELIANCE PLACED UPON THE DECISION O F CHENNAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL 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 TRIBUNAL, THE ISSUE IN QUESTION WAS UPFR ONT PAYMENT OF LEASE AND FURTHER THE SAID UPFRONT PAYME NT WAS PART OF THE CONDITIONS FOR ACQUIRING LEASEHOLD RIGHTS, UNLIKE THE PRESENT CASE WHERE, THE PAYMENT OF LEASE PREMIUM WAS A PRE-CONDITION FOR ENTERING INTO A LEA SE AGREEMENT. THE CIT(A) PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECIS ION OF MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN NAVI MUMBAI SEZ(P) LTD IN ITA NO.738 TO 7741/MUM/2012, RELATING TO ASSESSM ENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2009-10, VIDE ORDER DATED 12.08.20 13, IN ORDER TO HOLD THAT THE PAYMENT OF LEASE PREMIUM TO PCNTDA BEING A PRE-CONDITION FOR ENTERING INTO LEAS E AGREEMENT, COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE PAID UNDER THE T ERMS OF LEASE AGREEMENT. FURTHER, STAMP DUTY HAD BEEN P AID ON THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PLOT REPRESENTED BY LEAS E PREMIUM. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WA S DIRECTED TO DELETE THE DEMAND CREATED UNDER SECTION S 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 B ENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITO VS. CAMP EDUCATION SOCIETY (SUP RA), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER:- 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE WAS AN EDUCATIONAL SOCIET Y REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT. THE ASSES SEE WAS RUNNING VARIOUS SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES IN THE CIT Y OF PUNE. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, IN ORDE R TO ESTABLISH ANOTHER SCHOOL IN PIMPRI CHINCHWAD AREA, THE ASSESSEE IN REPLY TO AN ADVERTISEMENT BY PCNTDA, APPLIED FOR A PLOT ON LEASEHOLD BASIS. AS PER THE BID DOCUMENT, WHERE THE 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 ALLOTMENT. IN CASE SUCH PREMIUM WAS NOT PAID WITHIN PERIOD OF 3 MONTHS, 25% OF THE TENDER DEPOSIT WAS TO BE FORTIFI ED AND BALANCE AMOUNT WAS TO BE REFUNDED WITHOUT ANY INTER EST. THE TENDER DOCUMENT STATED THAT THE TENDER WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SALE OF RESERVED PLOTS AND AS PER THE DO CUMENT FULL PREMIUM WAS TO BE PAID TO PCNTDA AND LEASE AGREEMENT WOULD BE ENTERED WITH THE PARTY. THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH PCNTDA FOR 99 YEARS AND THE LEASE RENT WAS RS.100/- PER AN NUM FOR THE PERIOD OF 99 YEARS. THE ASSESSEE ACCORDING LY, DEPOSITED THE PREMIUM AMOUNT OF RS.2,20,24,860/-. AFTER RECEIVING THE PREMIUM AMOUNT, THE LICENSER I.E. PCN TDA AGREED TO EXECUTE LEASE DEED TO CONVEY / TRANSFER / ASSIGN THE LEASEHOLD RIGHTS. THE LEASE DEED AUTHOR IZES THE ASSESSEE TO BUILD / CONSTRUCT ANY BUILDING ON T HE SAID PLOT OF LAND. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT TH E PAYMENT OF PREMIUM WAS A PRE-CONDITION FOR OBTAININ G THE LEASE RIGHTS AND IT WAS ONLY AFTER PAYMENT OF THE L EASE PREMIUM, THE LEASE AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO AND BUNDLE OF RIGHTS WERE OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6 7. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THE ASSESSEE TO BE DEFAULT IN RESPECT OF THE TDS PAYABLE ON SUCH LEASE RENT PAYMENT TO PCNTDA. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE RATI O LAID DOWN BY THE CHENNAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN F OX CONN INDIA DEVELOPER (P) LTD. (SUPRA). THE ASSESSE E WAS HELD TO BE IN DEFAULT FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX ON S OURCE UNDER SECTION 194I OF THE ACT ON THE LEASE PREMIUM PAID TO PCNTDA AND DEMAND UNDER SECTION 201(1) OF THE AC T WAS RAISED AND INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF TH E ACT WAS CHARGED, RAISING 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 ASSES SEE AND PCNTDA AND POINTED OUT THAT THE LEASE PREMIUM FINDS MENTION IN THE LEASE DEED BUT THE SAID PAYMEN T OF LEASE PREMIUM WAS A PRE-CONDITION FOR ENTERING INTO LEASE AGREEMENT. THE CIT(A) THUS, HELD THAT SAME WAS NOT UNDER THE LEASE DEED AND THE PAYMENT OF LEASE PREMI UM FALLS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF DEFINITION OF RENT AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 194I OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERV ED FROM THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF FOX CONN INDIA DEVELOPER (P) LTD. (SUPRA) WAS DISTINGUISHABLE ON T HE FACTS AS IN THAT CASE ISSUE IN QUESTION WAS UPFRONT PAYMENT AND NOT LEASE PREMIUM. FURTHER, UPFRONT PAYMENT WAS PART OF CONSIDERATION FOR ACQUIRING LEA SEHOLD RIGHTS UNLIKE THE PRESENT CASE WHERE PAYMENT OF LEA SE PREMIUM WAS PRE-CONDITION FOR ENTERING INTO LEASE AGREEMENT AND THEREFORE THE FACTS OF THE CASE WERE CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE. FURTHER RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON TH E SERIES OF DECISIONS, UNDER WHICH SUCH SIMILAR PAYMENT OF L EASE PREMIUM WAS HELD TO BE NOT SUBJECT TO DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194I OF THE ACT. 9. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE OF PAYMENT OF LEASE PREMIUM AROSE BEFORE THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUN AL IN THE CASE OF NAVI MUMBAI SEZ (P) LTD. IN ITA NOS. 738 TO 740/MUM/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2009-1 0, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED 12.08.2013, HELD THAT LEASE PREMIUM PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE CITY AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF MAHARASHTRA L TD. (CIDCO) FOR ACQUIRING DEVELOPMENT AND LEASEHOLD RIG HTS FOR A PERIOD OF 60 YEARS, WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE SU BJECT TO DEDUCTION AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194I OF THE ACT. FURTHER ANOTHER BENCH OF THE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. WADHWA ASSOCIATES IN ITA NO.695/MUM/2012, VIDE ORDE R DATED 03.07.2013, HELD THAT TDS WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED UNDER SECTION 194I OF THE ACT IN RESPECT O F 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 LEA SE AGREEMENT, THE SAME CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN PAI D CONSEQUENT TO THE LEASE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PARTIES. FURTHER, THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING T HAT STAMP DUTY HAD BEEN PAID ON THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PLOT REPRESENTED BY THE LEASE PREMIUM, WHICH HAS NOT BEE N CONTROVERTED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTA TIVE FOR THE REVENUE. RELYING UPON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE 7 MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THREE DIFFERENT CAS ES, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT THE LEAS E PREMIUM PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 194I OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER W AS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RAISING THE DEMAND UNDER SECTION 201(1 ) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED B Y THE REVENUE ARE THUS, DISMISSED. 8. FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING, WE HOLD THAT WHERE THE LEASE PREMIUM PAID TO PCNTDA WAS A P RE- CONDITION FOR ENTERING INTO THE LEASE AGREEMENT, TH E SAME NOT BEING PAID CONSEQUENT TO THE EXECUTION OF THE L EASE AGREEMENT, CANNOT BE SAID TO BE PAYMENT IN LIEU OF RENT AS ENVISAGED UNDER SECTION 194 I OF THE ACT. IN ADDIT ION, THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID STAMP DUTY ON THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PLOT REPRESENTED BY THE LEASE PREMIUM AND THE SAID FINDING OF THE CIT(A) HAVING NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE , WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND DISM ISS 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 R AISED BY THE REVENUE. 7. WE FIND THAT THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT APPEAL ARE IDENTIC AL TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE RELIED ON BY THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HA S NOT BEEN ABLE TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE AFORESAID CASE. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO D EVIATE FROM THE VIEW CONSISTENTLY BEING TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL. ACCORDINGLY, THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED BEING DEVOID OF MERIT. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 29 TH DAY OF MAY, 2015 AT PUNE. SD/- SD/- (R.K. PANDA) (VIKAS AWASTHY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER SATISH PUNE DATED: 29 TH MAY, 2015 8 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. DEPARTMENT 3. CIT(A)-V, PUNE 4. CIT-V, PUNE 5. THE D.R, A PUNE BENCH 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, PUNE BENCHES, PUNE