Shri Satishchandra Harishankar Joshi, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(5), Ahmedabad

ITA 2410/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8276 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 22-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MAHESH G JIWADE
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE, SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2410/AHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14) SATISHCHANDRA HARISHANKAR JOSHI 101, DIVYA RESIDENCY, ELLISBRIDGE, AHMEDABAD - 380006 APPELLANT VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(2)(5), AHMEDABAD RESPONDENT PAN: ADFPJ4534Q /BY ASSESSEE : NONE /BY REVENUE : SHRI MAHESH G. JIWADE, CIT. D.R . /DATE OF HEARING : 30.10.2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.10.2017 ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ARISES AGAINST THE CIT(A)-7, AHMEDABADS ORDER DATED 23.06.2016 IN CAS E NO. CIT(A)-7/163/15-16, UPHOLDING ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION MAKING ADDITIO N OF RS.32,17,674/- AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ARISING FROM SALE OF FACTORY BUI LDING, IN PROCEEDINGS U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. ITA NO. 2410/AHD/16 [SATISHCHANDRA H. JOSHI VS. ITO ] A.Y. 2013-14 - 2 - 2. CASE CALLED TWICE. NONE APPEARS AT ASSESSEES B EHEST. CASE FILE REVEALS THAT THE REGISTRY HAS ALREADY SENT AN RPAD NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE DATED 29.09.2017. HE IS ACCORDINGLY PROCEEDED EX PARTE. 3. RELEVANT FACTS PERTAINING TO THE ABOVE SOLITARY ISSUE OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ADDITION ARE IN A VERY NARROW COMPASS. THE A SSESSEE IS FAIR ENOUGH IN NOT DISPUTING SALE OF ABOVE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IN THE N ATURE OF FACTORY BUILDING. HIS ONLY CASE HAS BEEN THAT IT IS NOT HE HIMSELF APPEAR ING AS PROPRIETOR OF M/S. NAGARJUN PHARMACEUTICALS BUT THE SAID ENTITY HAS SOLD THE AB OVE FACTORY BUILDING IN QUESTION. LEARNED CIT(A) REJECTS THIS CONTENTION IN HIS LOWER APPELLATE ORDER AS UNDER: 4.2 1 HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS SOLD IMMOVABLE PROPERTY FOR RS,51,00,000/- IN H IS CAPACITY AS PROPRIETOR OF M/S. NAGARJUN PHARMACEUTICALS. THE APPELLANT CONTEN DED, HOWEVER, THAT THIS PROPERTY HAD BEEN SOLD BY M/S. NAGARJUN PHARMACEUTI CAL PVT. LTD. WHEREIN HE WAS A DIRECTOR AND THAT THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING F ROM THIS TRANSACTION HAD BEEN SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME OF M/S. NAGARJUN PHAR MACEUTICAL PVT LTD., A PERUSAL OF THE SUBMISSIONS AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOWS THAT THE PROPERTY WAS ALLOTTED IN THE NAME OF M/S. NAGARJUN PHARMACEU TICALS, WHICH IS THE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN OF THE APPELLANT AND REMAINE D IN THIS NAME TILL THE DATE OF SALE. THE SAID PROPERTY WAS NOT TRANSFERRED TO M /S. NAGARJUN PHARMACEUTICAL PVT LTD. AT ANY TIME. THE SAME WAS S OLD BY THE APPELLANT HIMSELF AS PROPRIETOR OF M/S. NAGARJUN PHARMACEUTIC LS AND-NOT BY M/S. NAGARJUN PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD. NOT ONLY THIS, EVEN THE SALES CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT WAS RECEIVED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, SIN CE THE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY REMAINED WITH THE APPELLANT FROM THE DATE OF ALLOTMENT TILL THE DATE OF SALE AND WAS NOT TRANSFERRED AT ANY TIME TO M/S. NA GARJUN PHARMACEUTICAL PVT. LTD., THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING FROM THIS SALE WOUL D BE TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT AND PROPRIETOR OF M/S. NAGARJUN PHARM ACEUTICAL AS PER THE ACT, THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE COMPANY ARE DIFFERENT PERSON S SEPARATELY ASSESSABLE UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT. IT IS DEAR THAT THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM THE TRANSACTION OF SALE OF PROPERTY WAS TO BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE PERSON OWNING THE PROPERTY WHICH IN THIS CASE IS .T HE APPELLANT AS PROPRIETOR OF M/S. NAGARJUN PHARMACEUTICALS. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, THE ADDITION OF RS.32,17,674/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS LON G GAIN IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT IS CONFIRMED. GROUND OF APPEAL NO, 1 IS DISMISSED . 4. WE HAVE HEARD LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E STRONGLY SUPPORTING BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ACTION MAKING IMPUGNED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ADDITION. ITA NO. 2410/AHD/16 [SATISHCHANDRA H. JOSHI VS. ITO ] A.Y. 2013-14 - 3 - THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THE CASE FILE PRODUCED AT A SSESSEES BEHEST WHICH COULD REBUT THE ABOVE EXTRACTED CIT(A)S CONCLUSION THAT M/S. NAGARJUN PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD. HAD NEVER BECOME OWNER OF THE FACTORY BUI LDING IN QUESTION. WE THEREFORE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPU GNED ADDITION. THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED. THE ASSESSEES SOLE SUBSTAN TIVE GROUND FAILS. 5. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. [PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 31 ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017.] SD/- SD/- ( N. K. BILLAIYA ) (S. S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL M EMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 31/10/2017 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- / REVENUE 2 / ASSESSEE ! / CONCERNED CIT 4 !- / CIT (A) ( )*+ ,--. . /0 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1 +23 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / . // . /0