DCIT - 15(1)(1), MUMBAI V. AUTOMOBILE PRODUCTS OF INDIA LTD., CHENNAI

ITA 6197/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7040 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 20-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: VASANTI B PATEL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Gift; Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 50C; 2(14); 54; 6

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES H, MUMBAI , . , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.6197/MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 DCIT-15(1)(1), ROOM NO.470, 4 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 / VS. M/S AUTOMOBILE PRODUCTS OF INDIA LTD. 63-A, NORTH PHASE, SIDCO INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, AMBATTUR, CHENNAI-600098 ( / REVENUE) ( !'# $ /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO.AABCA0725C / REVENUE BY SHRI RAM TIWARI-DR !'# $ / ASSESSEE BY SHRI VASANTI B. PATEL % & ' $ ( / DATE OF HEARING : 05/06/2018 ' $ ( / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 05/06/2018 ITA NO.6197/MUM/2016 M/S AUTOMOBILE PRODUCTS OF INDIA LTD. 2 / O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21/07/2016 OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORI TY, MUMBAI. THE FIRST GROUND RAISED PERTAINS TO DELETIN G THE ADDITION OF RS.3 CRORES ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN STAMP DUTY VALUE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE PROVISION OF SE CTION 50C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER THE AC T). 2. DURING HEARING, THE LD. DR, SHRI RAM TIWARI, DEFENDED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFF ICER, WHEREAS, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MS. VASA NTI B. PATEL, DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 2.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. BEFORE AD VERTING FURTHER, WE ARE REPRODUCING HEREUNDER THE RELEVANT PORTION FROM THE ORDER IN THE CASE OF ATUL G. PURANIK VS IN COME TAX OFFICER (2011) 11 TAXMANN.COM 92 (MUM.) THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDE R PASSED BY THE CIT (APPEALS) ON 10-03-2010 IN RELATION TO THE A.Y. 2006-07. VARIOUS GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL DEAL WITH A S OLITARY ISSUE ABOUT THE CHARGEABILITY OF THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD 'CAP ITAL GAINS'. ITA NO.6197/MUM/2016 M/S AUTOMOBILE PRODUCTS OF INDIA LTD. 3 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE, AS STATED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED A SUM OF RS .2.50 CRORES IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF LAND KNOWN AS PLOT NO. 83, SECTOR-18, IN VILLAGE SITE KAMOTHE-II OF 12 .5% (ERSTWHILE GAOTHAN EXPANSION SCHEME) MEASURING 7299.41 SQ. MET RES (HEREINAFTER CALLED 'THE PLOT'). THE PLOT WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S. PATHIK CONSTRUCTION VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 25-08 -2005. IN THE RETURN FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT OFFER ANY INCOME UNDER THE HEAD 'CAPITAL GA IN' ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH TRANSFER OF THE PLOT. A NOTE WAS APPENDED ALON G WITH THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, READING AS UNDER: 'THE ASSESSEE'S FATHER OWNED A PLOT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH WAS ACQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA IN FEBRUA RY, 1970 FOR CIDCO. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOTTED A PLOT OF LAND UND ER THE 12.5% GAOTHAN EXPANSION SCHEME BY CIDCO AT VILLAGE KAMOTH E-II, DISTT. RAIGAD. THE SAME HAS BEEN ASSIGNED FOR RS.2,50,00,0 00/-. THE SAID ORIGINAL AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS NOT A CAPITAL ASSET U/S. 2(14)( III ) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE SAID PLOT FROM CIDCO ALSO DOES NOT BE COME CAPITAL ASSET U/S.2(14)( III ) AND HENCE THE SECTION 45 DOES NOT APPLY TO ASSIGNMENT OF SAID PLOT.' 3. THE FACTS LEADING TO THE ABOVE REFERRED TRANSACTIO N ARE THAT CERTAIN LANDS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE'S FATHER, LATE SHRI GANGADHAR VISHNU PURANIK, WERE ACQUIRED BY THE GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA VIDE NOTIFICATION DATED 03-02-1970 AND SUBSEQUENT NOTIFI CATION DATED 28- 12-1972 ISSUED U/S. 6 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1884. COMPENSATION WAS PAID TO SHRI GANGADHAR VISHNU PURA NIK IN THE PERIOD BETWEEN 1973 TO 1975 BY THE SPECIAL LAND ACQ UISITION OFFICER AT THE RATE OF RS. 5 PER SQUARE METER. THE ASSESSEE'S FATHER EXPIRED IN THE YEAR 1980. A FURTHER CLAIM FOR ADDIT ION COMPENSATION WAS MADE BEFORE THE ADDL. DISTT. JUDGE, RAIGAD, ALI BAG. ON AN EXAMINATION OF WITNESS SHRI ASHOK PURANIK, ALSO ONE OF THE CO- OWNERS FROM PURANIK FAMILY AND AN ENGINEER HIMSELF, THE ADD. DISTT. JUDGE, VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 25.04.2000 AWARDED COMP ENSATION AT THE RATE OF RS.16/-PER SQ. METRE FOR THE REASON THAT TH E LANDS ACQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT FROM SHRI GANGADHAR VISHNU PURANIK, WERE ACQUIRED BY THE PURANIK FAMILY FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPO SES. IT WAS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE LANDS UNDER REFERENCE WERE SITUATE D WITHIN THE EXTENDED LIMITS OF PANVEL MUNICIPAL COUNCIL. SHRI A SHOK PURANIK DEPOSED BEFORE THE ADDL. DIST. JUDGE THAT PURANIK F AMILY HAD PREPARED PLANS TO DEVELOP THE LANDS FOR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE AND THE LANDS ABUTTING VILLAGE AEUDGAON WERE INTENDED FOR THE EST ABLISHMENT OF DHUTPAPESHWAR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE AND THOSE WERE ALRE ADY CONVERTED INTO N.A. USE PRIOR TO 1965. THE MATTER WAS STILL F URTHER AGITATED BY THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED SHRI GANGADHAR VISH NU PURANIK. THE PLOT UNDER CIDCO 12.5% SCHEME WAS ALLOTTED TO THE A SSESSEE IN THE CAPACITY OF LEGAL HEIR VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 08-08-2 005 ON LEASE BASIS. THE ASSESSEE TRANSFERRED THE LEASEHOLD RIGHT S OF SAID PLOT TO M/S. PATHIK CONSTRUCTION VIDE AGREEMENT 25-8-2005 F OR A SUM OF RS.2.50 CRORES. IN THE OPINION OF THE AO, THE ASSES SEE GOT THE PLOT AS ITA NO.6197/MUM/2016 M/S AUTOMOBILE PRODUCTS OF INDIA LTD. 4 REVISED COMPENSATION BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL LANDS ACQ UIRED BY THE GOVT. HAD N.A. POTENTIAL AND FURTHER SUCH LANDS WER E WITHIN THE EXTENDED LIMITS OF PANVEL MUNICIPAL COUNCIL. HE REL IED ON CERTAIN JUDGMENTS TO FORM AN OPINION THAT THE ORIGINAL LAND S ACQUIRED WERE NOT AGRICULTURAL LANDS. FURTHER, SINCE THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE PLOT ALLOTTED TO HIM UNDER THE 12.5% SCHEME FOR A CONSID ERATION OF RS.2.50 CRORES, IN THE VIEW OF THE AO, THIS LAND WA S A CAPITAL ASSET AND ITS TRANSFER ATTRACTED THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 4 5. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A SSESSEE CAME OUT WITH ANOTHER REASON FOR NOT OFFERING ANY CAPITA L GAIN, BY CLAIMING THAT THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE PLOT WAS RS. 2, 88,35,000/- (I.E. AREA OF THE PLOT 7300 SQ. MTS. MULTIPLIED WITH THE MARKE T RATE PREVALENT AT RS.3950 PER SQ. MTR). THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THIS CO NTENTION AS WELL, BECAUSE IN HIS OPINION THE PLOT WAS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE AS A MATTER OF ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION RECEIVED IN LIEU OF LAND ACQUIRED BY THE GOVT. BELONGING TO HIS FATHER IN 1972. HE HE LD THAT SEC. 49 WAS ATTRACTED AND THE COST OF ACQUISITION WAS TO BE TAK EN AS THE COST AT WHICH THE LAND WAS ACQUIRED BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER. IN THIS REGARD, HE NOTED THAT THE VALUE OF THE ORIGINAL LANDS ACQUI RED BY THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER WAS FIXED AT RS.10,69,006/ -, BY VALUING IT AT RS.6 PER SQ. MTR. OR RS.4/- PER SQ. MTR OR RS.3. 50 PER SQ. MTR. DEPENDING ON THE SURVEY NUMBERS. BY ORDER OF ADDL. JUDGE DATED 25- 04-2000, THE MARKET VALUE OF LAND WAS REVISED AT RS .16/- PER SQ. MTR. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE AVERAGE RATE OF RS .5/- PER SQ. MTR. WAS TAKEN BY HIM FOR ORIGINAL COMPENSATION OF RS.10 ,69,006/- AND ACCORDINGLY REVISED COMPENSATION WAS WORKED OUT AT RS.11/- PER SQ. MTR. AT RS.23,51,813/-. DEDUCING 1/5TH AS ASSESSEE' S SHARE, THE AO DETERMINED THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE PLOT AT R S.4,70,362/- (I.E. RS.23,51,813/- DIVIDED BY RS.5). AS THE ASSESSEE GO T POSSESSION OF THE PLOT FROM CIDCO VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 08-08-2005 AND SOLD THE SAME TO M/S. PATHIK CONSTRUCTION FOR A CONSIDERATIO N OF RS.2.50 CRORES, THE AO HELD THAT CAPITAL GAIN WAS TO BE CHA RGED AS SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAIN. IT WAS NOTICED BY HIM THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED MARKET RATES PREVAILING FOR LANDS AT KAMO THE-II PUBLISHED BY PANVEL NAGAR PALIKA FROM 01-04-2004 TO 31-12-200 4 AT RS.3950 PER SQ. MTR., THE AO COMPUTED THE MARKET VALUE OF T HE PLOT AT RS.2,88,35,000/- (RS.3950 X 7300 SQ. MTRS.) AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 50C OF THE I.T. ACT. THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAI N WAS THUS WORKED OUT AS UNDER : 'VALUE OF THE ASSET SOLD ON 25.8.2005 (I.E. LAND AT VILLAGE KAMOTHE SOLD TO M/S. PATHIK CONSTRUCTION ON 25.8.2005) : RS.2,88,35,000 LESS: COST OF ACQUISITION AS WORKED OUT IN PARA 5( II ) : RS. 4,70,362 SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS : RS.2,83,64,638' ITA NO.6197/MUM/2016 M/S AUTOMOBILE PRODUCTS OF INDIA LTD. 5 5. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPEAL AUTHORITY, INTER ALIA, CONTENDING THAT THE LAND ACQUIRED BY THE LAND ACQU ISITION OFFICER WERE AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND HENCE THE PLOT OF LAND ALLOTTED UNDER 12.5% SCHEME AT VILLAGE KAMOTHE-II WOULD ALSO RETAIN THE SAME CHARACTER AS THAT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. THIS CONTENTION DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH THE LD. CIT(A). IT WAS ALSO ARGUED THAT THE COST OF THE PLO T ALLOTTED SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS THE MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND AT THE T IME OF ALLOTMENT AND HENCE THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 49 WERE NOT APPLICABLE . THE LD. CIT(A) WAS UNCONVINCED WITH THIS ARGUMENT ALSO, AS IN HIS OPIN ION, THE TRIBUNAL ORDER RELIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ACIT V. NIRMAL BHOGILAL [IT APPEAL NO.2942/MUM/02] DATED 23.11.2005, WAS NOT APPLICABL E BECAUSE IN THAT CASE IT WAS ONLY IF THE LAND WAS ALLOTTED WITHOUT A NY FINANCIAL CRITERIA THAT THE MARKET VALUE OF SIMILAR PLOT IN THE LOCALITY WA S HELD TO BE TAKEN AS REPRESENTING THE COST OF ACQUISITION. THE LAST MAJO R CONTENTION PUT FORTH ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON NON-APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 50C WAS ALSO FOUND UNTENABLE. RESULTANTLY, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS UP HELD ON THIS POINT. 6. BEFORE WE PROCEED TO DEAL WITH THE RIVAL CONTENTIO NS, IT IS NECESSARY TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT IN AS MUCH AS THERE ARE CER TAIN FACTUAL INCONSISTENCIES RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. T HE FIRST, BEING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ALLOTTED THE PLOT ON OWNERSHIP BAS IS FOR PERPETUITY BUT ONLY ON LEASE BASIS, AS STATED BY THE LD. AR TO BE FOR SIXTY YEARS. THE SECOND VERY CRUCIAL FACT IS THAT THE LEASE RIGHTS I N THE PLOT WERE ALLOTTED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 18.08.2004 AND NOT ON 08.08.2005 AS NOTED BY THE AO. IN FACT, 08.08.2005 IS THE DATE ON WHICH THE LEASE AGR EEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE GOVERNMENT WAS EXECUTED. THESE FAC TS ARE CLEAR FROM THE STATEMENT OF FACTS AND GROUNDS TAKEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN PARA 1.3 OF THE STATEMENT OF FACTS BEF ORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED SEVERAL DOCUM ENTS TO THE AO VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 19.11.2008, INTER ALIA ,: '(VI) CIDCO'S LETTER DATED 18.08.2004 ALLOTTING PLOT OF LAND ON LEASE BASIS ADMEASURING A RUND 7300 SQ.MTS. AT VILLAGE KAMOTHE, TALUKA PANVEL, DISTT. RAIGADH.' FU RTHER GROUND NO. 1.4( III ) TAKEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) STATES THE DATE OF AL LOTMENT AS 16.08.2004. THESE FACTS WERE AVAILABLE BOTH BEFORE THE AO AS WELL AS THE CIT(A). NONE OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE CHOSEN T O CONTROVERT THEM. NOW WE WILL DECIDE THE CONTROVERSY BEFORE US IN THE LIGHT OF CORRECT AND COMPLETE FACTS AS AFORE NOTED. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED TH E RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE'S FATHER LATE SHRI GANGADHAR VISHNI PURANIK WAS OWNER OF CERTAIN LANDS WHICH WERE ACQUIRED BY THE GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA BY NOTIFICATIO N DATED 03-02-1970 AND SUBSEQUENT NOTIFICATION DATED 28-12-1972. THE P OSSESSION OF THE LANDS WAS TAKEN OVER BY THE GOVT. IN MARCH 1973 BY AWARDI NG ORIGINAL COMPENSATION @ RS. 5/- PER SQ. MTR. SOME WHERE IN T HE FINANCIAL YEAR 1973-74. THE ASSESSEE'S FATHER PASSED AWAY IN 1980. THE ASSESSEE, ALONG WITH OTHER CO-OWNERS, BECAME THE LEGAL HEIR OF HIS FATHER. THE GRANT OF COMPENSATION AT RS.5/- PER SQ. MTR. WAS CHALLENGED WHICH WAS ENHANCED BY THE ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE TO RS.16/- PER SQ. MTR. VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 25- 04-2000. THEREAFTER, 12.5% SCHEME WAS INTRODUCED AN D ACCORDING TO THE LD. A.R., THE SAID SUM AT RS.16/- PER SQ. MTR. WAS RETURNED AND THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.6197/MUM/2016 M/S AUTOMOBILE PRODUCTS OF INDIA LTD. 6 WAS ALLOTTED THE PLOT ON 16-08-2004 ON LEASE BASIS FOR SIXTY YEARS. THE LEASE AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED ON 08-08-2005. THE ASS ESSEE ASSIGNED SUCH RIGHTS IN THE PLOT TO M/S. PATHIK CONSTRUCTION FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.2.50 CRORES ON 25-08-2005. ON A SPECIFIC QUERY, THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION AT RS.11/- PER SQ. MTR. (RS.16/- PER SQ. MTR. AS ORDERED BY THE ADDL. DIST. JUDGE MINUS RS.5/- PER SQUARE METER AS THE ORIGINAL COMPENSATION ALLOTTED TO THE ASSESSEE'S LATE FATHER), THE SAID SUM WAS DULY OFFERED FOR TAXATION IN THE RELEVANT YEAR AND IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT WHEN A SUM AT THE RATE OF R S.16/- PER SQ. MTR. WAS RETURNED TO THE GOVT. IN LIEU OF THE PLOT, NO ADJUS TMENT ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN TAX PAID AT THE TIME OF RECEIPT OF RS. 11/- PER SQ. FT. AS ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION, WAS CLAIMED. THERE IS NO M ATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE, IN FACT, OFFERED ANY SUM FO R TAXATION AT THE RATE OF RS.11 PER SQUARE METER. AS WILL BE SEEN INFRA, THE FACT THAT WHETHER OR NOT THE ASSESSEE OFFERED THIS SUM FOR TAXATION IN AN EA RLIER YEAR IS NOT GERMANE TO THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION. FROM THE NARRATIO N OF FACTS, IT BECOMES MANIFEST THAT THERE ARE TWO DISTINCT TRANSACTIONS I N THIS CASE. THE FIRST, IS THE ACQUISITION OF LANDS OF ASSESSEE'S FATHER AGAIN ST WHICH THE ASSESSEE, AS LEGAL HEIR, WAS GIVEN LEASE OF THE PLOT ON 16-08-20 04. THIS TRANSACTION GOT COMPLETED WHEN THE ASSESSEE GOT THE LEASEHOLD RIGHT S IN THE PLOT ON SUCH DATE, WHICH FALLS IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSTT. YEAR 2005-06. WHATEVER WAS THE AMOUNT OF PROFIT OR GAIN ON THIS T RANSACTION WAS ACCORDINGLY CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN A.Y. 2005-06. THE SECOND TRANSACTION IS THE TRANSFERRING OF SUCH LEASEHOLD RIGHTS IN THE PL OT TO M/S. PATHIK CONSTRUCTION ON 25-08-2005 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF R S.2.50 CRORES, WHICH EVENT FALLS IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE AS SESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT IS THUS EVIDENT THAT OUT OF THE A BOVE REFERRED TWO TRANSACTIONS, WE ARE CONCERNED IN THE PRESENT APPEA L ONLY WITH THE SECOND TRANSACTION, WHICH TOOK PLACE IN THE YEAR UNDER CON SIDERATION. 8. NOW, WE WILL TAKE UP THE ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE L D. A.R., ONE BY ONE. I. THE PLOT WOULD RETAIN CHARACTER OF AGRICULTURAL LAND 9. THE LD. A.R. CONTENDED THAT THE GOVT. ACQUIRED ORI GINAL LANDS OF ASSESSEE'S FATHER IN 1972 WHICH WERE AGRICULTURAL I N NATURE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LEASE RIGHTS IN THE PLOT WOULD RETAIN THE SAME CHARACTER AS THAT OF THE ORIGINAL LANDS ACQUIRED BY THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BEING THE AGRICULTURAL LAND. DEVELOPING THIS ARGUMENT, IT WAS PUT FORTH THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE TRANSFERRED AGRICULTURAL LANDS (BEING RIGH TS IN THE PLOT ASSUMING TO HAVE THE CHARACTER OF ORIGINAL AGRICULTURAL LANDS A CQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT), IN THIS YEAR, THERE WILL NOT ARISE ANY LIABILITY TO PAY TAX UNDER THE HEAD 'CAPITAL GAIN' BECAUSE THE AGRICULTURAL LA ND IS EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION OF 'CAPITAL ASSETS' GIVEN IN SECTION SEC . 2(14) OF THE ACT. IN THE OPPOSITION, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN THIS REGARD. 9.1 THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED LEASE RIGHTS IN THE PLOT IN CONSIDERATION OF ACQUISITION OF ORIGINAL LANDS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE 'S FATHER IN THE EARLIER YEARS. A LOT OF DISCUSSION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AUT HORITIES BELOW ON THE QUESTION OF DETERMINATION OF THE CHARACTER OF SUCH LANDS AS AGRICULTURAL LANDS OR OTHERWISE. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IT I S ONLY AN ACADEMIC ITA NO.6197/MUM/2016 M/S AUTOMOBILE PRODUCTS OF INDIA LTD. 7 EXERCISE IN SO FAR AS THE ISSUE IN QUESTION IS CONC ERNED, BEING THE ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE RIGHTS IN THE PLOT. IT IS OBVIO US FOR THE REASON THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOTTED THE LEASE RIGHTS IN THE P LOT IN THE PRECEDING YEAR ON 16.08.2004, THAT TRANSACTION GOT COMPLETED. THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN, IF CHARGEABLE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE TOT AL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH FIRST TRANSACTION IN TH E PRECEDING YEAR. WE ARE REFRAINING FROM GIVING ANY FINDING AS TO WHETHER TH E ORIGINAL LANDS OF THE ASSESSEE'S LATE FATHER ACQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT, WERE AGRICULTURAL LANDS OR NOT. IT IS NOT IN OUR DOMAIN TO GIVE ANY SUCH FI NDING AS IT IS/WAS FOR THE AO TO DECIDE AS PER LAW. SUFFICE TO SAY, WE ARE CON CERNED WITH THE EVENTS OCCURRING IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 9.2 ONCE THE FIRST TRANSACTION WAS OVER ON THE RECEIPT OF RIGHTS IN THE PLOT, THEN THE TIES OF SUCH RIGHTS IN THE PLOT GOT SEVERE D FROM THOSE OF LANDS WHICH WERE ACQUIRED IN THE YEARS 1970/1972. A NEW A SSET EMERGED IN THE SHAPE OF RIGHTS IN THE PLOT. IT IS THIS ASSET, WHOS E NATURE IS REQUIRED TO BE DETERMINED AT THE TIME OF ITS SUBSEQUENT TRANSFER, WHICH IS A SECOND TRANSACTION DIVERSE FROM THE FIRST TRANSACTION WHIC H WAS COMPLETED IN THE LAST YEAR. IT WAS FAIRLY ADMITTED AND RIGHTLY SO, T HAT THE RIGHTS IN THE PLOT, IN ITSELF, COULD NOT BE CATEGORIZED AS AGRICULTURAL LA ND WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(14)( III ). 9.3 SECTION 45 CLEARLY PROVIDES THAT ANY PROFITS OR GA INS ARISING FROM THE TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET EFFECTED IN THE PREVIOU S YEAR SHALL, SAVE AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN SECTIONS 54 TO 54H, BE CHARGE ABLE TO INCOME-TAX UNDER THE HEAD 'CAPITAL GAINS' AND SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE. WHA T IS RELEVANT FOR APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 45 IS THE PROFITS OR GAINS AR ISING FROM THE TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET EFFECTED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR. IT IS ONLY THE NATURE OF ASSET TRANSFERRED IN THE YEAR WHICH IS TO BE TAKEN INTO C ONSIDERATION FOR COMPUTING PROFIT OR GAINS CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER T HE HEAD 'CAPITAL GAINS'. ONLY THE NATURE OF THE CAPITAL ASSET SO TRANSFERRED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR IS TO BE VIEWED DE HORS THE SOURCE FROM WHICH IT WAS ACQUIRED. IF A 'CAPIT AL ASSET' AS PER SEC. 2(14) IS PURCHASED OUT OF AGRICU LTURAL INCOME, THAT WOULD NOT LOSE ITS CHARACTER OF CAPITAL ASSET NOTWITHSTAN DING THE FACT THAT THE INCOME EXEMPT FROM TAX WAS EMPLOYED FOR PURCHASING SUCH CAPITAL ASSET. WHENEVER SUCH RESULTING CAPITAL ASSET IS TRANSFERRE D LEADING TO ANY PROFIT OR GAIN, SUCH AMOUNT SHALL BE CHARGED TO TAX U/S.45 OF THE ACT. THE SOLE CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ASSET TRANSFER RED IS CAPITAL ASSET U/S.2(14) OR NOT IS TO CONSIDER THE NATURE OF THE A SSET SO TRANSFERRED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND NOT THE ORIGIN OR THE SOURCE FROM WHICH SUCH ASSET CAME TO BE ACQUIRED. 9.4 ADVERTING TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE, ONCE T HE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED RIGHTS IN THE PLOT, WHICH IN ITSELF IS ADMITTEDLY N OT AN AGRICULTURAL LAND, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF CONSIDERING IT TO BE AN AGR ICULTURAL LAND ON THE PREMISE THAT IT WAS ALLOTTED TO THE ASSESSEE AGAINS T ACQUISITION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. FURTHER THE QUESTION WHETHER THE LANDS ACQUIRED BY THE GOVT. IN THE YEARS 1970/72 WERE AGRICULTURAL LAND O R NOT IS BEYOND OUR PURVIEW AS WE ARE CONCERNED ONLY WITH THE SECOND TR ANSACTION OF TRANSFER ITA NO.6197/MUM/2016 M/S AUTOMOBILE PRODUCTS OF INDIA LTD. 8 OF RIGHTS IN THE PLOT, WHICH EVENT TOOK PLACE IN TH E YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THE ASSESSE E'S CONTENTION THAT THE RIGHTS IN THE PLOT SHOULD ALSO BE CONSIDERED AS AGR ICULTURAL LAND TRANSFERRED DURING THE YEAR, IS BEREFT OF ANY FORCE AND IS JETT ISONED. AS SUCH, WE ADVANCE FURTHER TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN ARISING TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR IN QUESTION ON THE TRANSFER OF RIGHTS IN THE PLOT. II. COST OF ACQUISITION OF RIGHTS IN THE PLOT AND SECTION 49(1) 10. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A SSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE PLOT WAS RS.2,8 8,35,000/-, BEING THE AMOUNT DETERMINED BY APPLYING MARKET RATE OF THE PL OT AT RS.3950/- PER SQ. MTR. ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER. THE AO, ON THE OTHER HAND, CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE COST OF ACQUISITION WAS LIABLE TO BE TAKEN AT RS.4,70,362/- AS THE COST AT WHICH THE ASSET WAS AC QUIRED BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER U/S.49. SUCH AMOUNT WAS DETERMINED BY CONSIDE RING THE RATE OF REVISED COMPENSATION AT RS.11/- PER SQ. MTR. THE LD . CIT(A) ECHOED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THIS POINT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN UP HOLDING THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 49(1) AS SUCH A PROVISION WAS NOT APPLICABL E TO THE PRESENT FACTS. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR REITERATED THE REASONING GIV EN BY THE AO IN THIS REGARD. 10.1 IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT SEC. 49(1) IS APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS IMPERATIVE TO HAVE A LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE OF THE SECTION, WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER : '49 (1) WHERE THE CAPITAL ASSET BECAME THE PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE ( I ) ON ANY DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS ON THE TOTAL OR PARTI AL PARTITION OF A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY; ( II ) UNDER A GIFT OR WILL; ( III ) ( A )BY SUCCESSION, INHERITANCE OR DEVOLUTION, OR ( B )ON ANY DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS ON THE DISSOLUTION O F A FIRM, BODY OF INDIVIDUALS, OR OTHER ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS, WHERE SUCH DISSOLUTION HAD TAKEN PLACE AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF A PRIL, 1987, OR ( C )ON ANY DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS ON THE LIQUIDATION O F A COMPANY, OR ( D )UNDER A TRANSFER TO A REVOCABLE OR AN IRREVOCABLE TRUST, OR ( E )UNDER ANY SUCH TRANSFER AS IS REFERRED TO IN CLAUS E ( IV ) OR CLAUSE ( V ) OR CLAUSE ( VI ) OR CLAUSE ( VIA ) OR CLAUSE ( VIAA ) OR CLAUSE ( VICA ) OR CLAUSE ( VICB ) OF SECTION 47; ( IV ) SUCH ASSESSEE BEING A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY, BY TH E MODE REFERRED TO IN SUB- (2) OF SECTION 64 AT ANY TIME AFTER THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 1969, ITA NO.6197/MUM/2016 M/S AUTOMOBILE PRODUCTS OF INDIA LTD. 9 THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSET SHALL BE DEEME D TO BE THE COST FOR WHICH THE PREVIOUS OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ACQUIRED IT, AS INCR EASED BY THE COST OF ANY IMPROVEMENT OF THE ASSETS INCURRED OR BORNE BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER OR THE ASSESSEE, AS THE CASE MAY BE.' 10.2 A BARE PERUSAL OF THE PROVISION INDICATES THAT WHE RE THE CAPITAL ASSET BECAME THE PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE IN ANY OF THE S ITUATIONS CONTEMPLATED IN CLAUSES ( I ) TO ( IV ), THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSET SHALL BE DE EMED TO BE THE COST FOR WHICH THE PREVIOUS OWNER OF THE PROPER TY ACQUIRED IT, AS INCREASED BY THE COST OF IMPROVEMENTS, ETC. THE EXPLANATION BELOW SUB- SECTION (1) DEFINES THE EXPRESSION 'PREVIOUS OWNER OF THE PROPERTY' TO MEAN THE LAST PREVIOUS OWNER WHO ACQUIRED IT BY A MODE O F ACQUISITION OTHER THAN THOSE REFERRED TO IN CLAUSES ( I ) TO ( IV ) OF THIS SUB-SECTION. THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF SEC. 49(1) IS THAT WHERE A CAPITAL ASS ET BECOMES THE PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE BY ANY OF THE MODES SPECIFIED IN CLAUS ES ( I ) TO ( IV ), SUCH AS GIFT OR WILL, SUCCESSION, INHERITANCE OR DEVOLUTION, ETC ., THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF SUCH CAPITAL ASST IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE RECE IVING SUCH CAPITAL ASSET SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE COST FOR WHICH IT WAS ACQ UIRED BY THE PERSON TRANSFERRING SUCH CAPITAL ASSET IN THE PRESCRIBED M ODES. THE RATIONALE BEHIND THIS PROVISION IS THAT THE TRANSFER OF SUCH ASSET B Y THE PERSON RECEIVING IN ANY OF THE MODES PRESCRIBED, SHOULD NOT GO TAX FREE. IN ORDER TO COMPUTE CAPITAL GAIN ON THE TRANSFER OF ANY CAPITAL ASSET, THE EXIS TENCE OF COST OF ACQUISITION IS AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT. IF THERE IS NO COST OF ACQ UISITION AND THE CASE IS NOT COVERED U/S 55(2), THEN THE COMPUTATION PROVISIONS SHALL FAIL AND NO LIABILITY TO TAX SHALL ARISE U/S 45. AS NO COST IS ACTUALLY I NCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ACQUIRING THE ASSETS UNDER SUCH MODES, AND ON THE F URTHER TRANSFER OF SUCH ASSETS, THE CAPITAL GAIN IS CONTEMPLATED BY THE LEG ISLATURE, THE MECHANISM OF SECTION 49 HAS BEEN PUT IN PLACE TO REMEDY THE SITU ATION. THIS PROVISION DEEMS THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSESSEE AS TH E COST FOR WHICH IT WAS ACQUIRED BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER AS INCREASED BY THE COST OF ANY IMPROVEMENTS INCURRED BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER. 10.3 HOWEVER, IN ORDER TO APPLY THE MANDATE OF SEC. 49( 1), IT IS SINE QUA NON THAT THE CAPITAL ASSET ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ANY OF THE MODES PRESCRIBED IN CLAUSES ( I ) TO ( IV ) SHOULD BECOME THE SUBJECT MATTER OF TRANSFER AND ONLY IN SUCH A SITUATION WHERE SUCH CAPITAL ASS ET IS SUBSEQUENTLY TRANSFERRED, THE COST TO THE PREVIOUS OWNER IS DEEM ED AS THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSET. IT IS APPARENT FROM THE L ANGUAGE OF SUB-SEC. (1) ITSELF WHICH OPENS WITH THE WORDS: 'WHERE THE CAPITAL ASSE T BECAME THE PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE' AND AFTER ENUMERATING CERTAIN SITU ATIONS, PROVIDES THAT 'THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSET SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE COST FOR WHICH THE PREVIOUS OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ACQUIRED IT.' THE PH RASE 'THE ASSET' USED IN THE LATER PART OF THE PROVISION RELATES TO THE CAPI TAL ASSET WHICH BECAME THE PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES . THE NATURAL COROLLARY WHICH, THEREFORE, FOLLOWS IS THAT THE COST TO THE P REVIOUS OWNER IS CONSIDERED AS THE COST OF ACQUISITION ONLY OF THE CAPITAL ASSE T, WHICH BECOMES THE PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE MODES GIVEN IN CLAU SES ( I ) TO ( IV ). BUT ONCE SUCH CAPITAL ASSET IS TRANSFERRED AND ANOTHER CAPIT AL ASSET IS ACQUIRED, THERE IS NO APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 49(1) TO SUCH CONVERTED AS SET. ITA NO.6197/MUM/2016 M/S AUTOMOBILE PRODUCTS OF INDIA LTD. 10 10.4 COMING BACK TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE, THE VIEWPOINT OF THE AO THAT THE COST OF ACQUISITION IN THIS CASE ON THE AS SIGNING OF RIGHTS IN THE PLOT TO M/S PATHIK CONSTRUCTION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION ORIGINALLY AWARDED ON THE ACQUISITION OF LANDS FROM ASSESSEE'S FATHER, RELYING ON SEC. 49(1), DOES NOT APPEAR TO B E SOUND. THIS PROVISION CAN NOT HAVE ANY APPLICATION AT THE STAGE WHEN THE ASSE SSEE TRANSFERRED THE RIGHTS IN THE PLOT TO A THIRD PARTY IN THE YEAR IN QUESTIO N, BECAUSE WHAT HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED IN THIS YEAR IS THE RIGHT IN THE PLOT, WHICH WAS NOT INHERITED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS FATHER. THE ASSESSEE ONLY REC EIVED THE CAPITAL ASSET IN THE SHAPE OF RIGHT TO RECEIVE COMPENSATION FROM THE GOVERNMENT ON THE DEATH OF HIS FATHER. COST TO THE PREVIOUS OWNER U/S 49(1) WOULD BE RELEVANT AT THE TIME OF COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN IN THE PR ECEDING YEAR, WHEN COMPENSATION WAS RECEIVED IN THE SHAPE OF RIGHT IN THE PLOT. ONCE THE FIRST TRANSACTION ON THE ALLOTMENT OF RIGHTS IN THE PLOT CAME TO AN END, THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 49(1) ALSO CEASED TO OPERATE. IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO THE SECOND INDEPENDENT TRANSACTION ON TH E SALE OF SUCH RIGHTS TO M/S. PATHIK CONSTRUCTION IN THE YEAR IN QUESTION. W E, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN APPLYING SE C. 49(1). 10.5 HAVING HELD THAT SEC. 49(1) IS NOT APPLICABLE, THE IMMEDIATE QUESTION WHICH ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION THEN IS THAT WHAT IS THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF RIGHTS IN THE PLOT TRANSFERRED ON 25-08-2005 TO M/S . PATHIK CONSTRUCTION. THE LD. A.R. ARGUED THAT THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PL OT OF LAND ON THE DATE OF ALLOTMENT SHOULD BE TAKEN AS THE COST OF ACQUISITIO N, AS HAS BEEN HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ACIT V. NIRMAL BHOGILAL ( SUPRA ). FROM THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE, IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOTTED RI GHTS IN THE PLOT ON 16-08- 2004 AS COMPENSATION FOR THE ACQUISITION OF LANDS A CQUIRED BY THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER WAY BACK IN THE YEARS 1970 /72. THE VALUE OF RIGHTS IN THE PLOT IS QUID PRO QUO FOR THE ACQUISITION OF LANDS FROM ASSESSEE'S FATHE R IN THE PAST. IN OTHER WORDS, THE MARKET VALUE SUCH RIGHTS IN THE PLOT WAS CONSIDERED BY THE STATE GOVT. AS COMPENSATION FOR A CQUISITION OF LAND IN EARLIER YEARS. IF SUCH RIGHTS IN THE PLOT HAD NOT B EEN ALLOTTED, THEN THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN CASH EQUIVALENT TO T HE MARKET VALUE OF SUCH RIGHTS AS COMPENSATION FOR ACQUISITION OF LANDS. AS IT IS A TRANSACTION WITH THE GOVERNMENT, THE QUESTION OF ANY UNDER-HAND PAYM ENT ALSO STANDS RULED OUT. SEC. 48 DEALS WITH THE MODE OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'CAPITAL GAINS'. IT PROVIDES THAT SU CH INCOME SHALL BE COMPUTED BY DEDUCTING FROM THE FULL VALUE OF THE CO NSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET, THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSET AND THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT, IF ANY, A LONG WITH THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY IN CONNECTION SUCH TRANSFER. THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESU LT OF THE ACQUISITION BY THE GOVT. IS THE AMOUNT GIVEN AS CONSIDERATION FOR SUCH ACQUISITION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE THE MARKET VALUE OF ANY OTHER CAPITAL A SSET GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AGAINST SUCH ACQUISITION. AS IN THE INSTANT CASE TH E GOVT. HAS ALLOTTED RIGHTS IN THE PLOT AS THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION ON T HE ACQUISITION OF LANDS BY IT IN THE YEARS 1970/72, THE MARKET VALUE OF SUCH RIGH T IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION AT THE TIME OF COMPUTIN G CAPITAL GAIN ON THE FIRST TRANSACTION IN THE PRECEDING YEAR. ONCE A PARTICULA R AMOUNT IS CONSIDERED AS FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION AT THE TIME OF ITS PURC HASE, THE SAME SHALL AUTOMATICALLY BECOME THE COST OF ACQUISITION AT THE TIME WHEN SUCH CAPITAL ITA NO.6197/MUM/2016 M/S AUTOMOBILE PRODUCTS OF INDIA LTD. 11 ASSET IS SUBSEQUENTLY TRANSFERRED. THUS, THE FULL V ALUE OF CONSIDERATION SHOULD MEAN THE MARKET VALUE OF THE LEASE RIGHTS IN THE PLOT FOR SIXTY YEARS AT THE TIME OF THE FIRST TRANSACTION WHICH WAS COMPLET ED ON 16-08-2004, AND THE SAME AMOUNT SHALL BECOME THE COST OF ACQUISITIO N WHEN SUCH RIGHTS IN THE PLOT BECAME SUBJECT MATTER OF TRANSFER IN THE C URRENT YEAR ON 25-08-2004. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND HOLD THAT THE MARKET VALUE OF SUCH LEASE RIGHTS FOR SIXTY YEARS IN THE PLOT AS ON 16-08-2004 SHALL CONSTITUTE THE COST OF ACQUISIT ION FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN WHEN IT WAS ASSIGNED FOR A C ONSIDERATION OF RS.2.50 CORES ON 25-08-2005. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DETERMIN E THE COST OF ACQUISITION IN TERMS INDICATED ABOVE AFTER ALLOWING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. III. FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION AND SECTION 50C: 11. THE AO ADOPTED THE VALUE OF ASSET SOLD ON 25-08-20 05 AT RS.2.88 CRORES BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.50C FOR THE PURPO SES OF COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN. HIS VIEW WAS BASED ON THE ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSI ON THAT THE MARKET RATE PREVAILING FOR LAND AT VILLAGE KAMOTHE-II PUBLISHED BY PANVEL NAGAR PALIKA DURING 1.4.2004 TO 31.12.2004 WAS RS.3950 PER SQ. M ETER. THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO ON THIS SCORE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE UNJUSTIFI ED IN APPLYING SECTION 50C. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. 11.1 IN ORDER TO APPRECIATE THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS ON TH IS ISSUE, IT WOULD BE APT TO CONSIDER THE PRESCRIPTION OF SEC. 50C(1), WHICH IS AS UNDER : '50C. (1) WHERE THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRU ING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER BY AN ASSESSEE OF A CAPITAL ASSET, BEING L AND OR BUILDING OR BOTH, IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSAB LE BY ANY AUTHORITY OF A STATE GOVERNMENT (HEREINAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFER RED TO AS THE 'STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY') FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFER, THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 48, BE DEEMED TO BE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF SUCH TRANSFER 11.2 ON GOING THROUGH THE ABOVE PROVISION, IT TRANSPIRE S THAT WHERE THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED OR ACCRUING ON THE TRANSFER OF AN ASSET, BEING LAND OR BUILDING OF BOT H, IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY STAMP VALUATIO N AUTHORITY, THE VALUE SO ADOPTED ETC. SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF SEC. 48, BE DEEMED TO BE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF S UCH TRANSFER. THIS SECTION HAS BEEN INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT 2002 W.E.F. 01 -04-2003 WITH A VIEW TO SUBSTITUTE THE DECLARED FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH TRANSFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH T HE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY . BUT FOR THIS PROVISION, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE ACT, BY WHICH THE FULL VALU E OF A CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF TRANSFER OF LAN D OR BUILDING OR BOTH IS DEEMED TO BE ANY AMOUNT OTHER THAN THAT ACTUALLY RE CEIVED. FROM THE LANGUAGE OF SUB-SEC. (1), IT IS CLEAR THAT THE VALU E OF LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY THE STAMP VALU ATION AUTHORITY SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 48, BE DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF THE ITA NO.6197/MUM/2016 M/S AUTOMOBILE PRODUCTS OF INDIA LTD. 12 CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF S UCH A TRANSFER. TWO THINGS ARE NOTICEABLE FROM THIS PROVISION. FIRSTLY, IT IS A DEEMING PROVISION AND SECONDLY, IT EXTENDS ONLY TO LAND OR BUILDING OR BO TH. IT IS MANIFEST THAT A DEEMING PROVISION HAS BEEN INCORPORATED TO SUBSTITU TE THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY IN PLACE OF CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF TRANSFER, IN CA SE THE LATTER IS LOWER THAN THE FORMER. IT IS FURTHER RELEVANT TO NOTE THAT THE MAN DATE OF SEC. 50C EXTENDS ONLY TO A CAPITAL ASSET WHICH IS 'LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH'. IT, THEREFORE, FOLLOWS THAT ONLY IF A CAPITAL ASSET BEING LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH IS TRANSFERRED AND THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRU ING AS A RESULT OF SUCH TRANSFER IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY, THE DEEMING FICTION UNDER SUB- SEC. (1) SHALL BE ACTIVATED TO SUBSTITUTE SUCH ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABL E VALUE AS FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF S UCH TRANSFER IN THE GIVEN SITUATION. 11.3 IT IS A SETTLED LEGAL PROPOSITION THAT A DEEMING P ROVISION CANNOT BE EXTENDED BEYOND THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT IS ENACTED . THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN CIT V. AMARCHAND N. SHROFF [1963] 48 ITR 59 HAS CONSIDERED THE SCOPE OF A DEEMING PROVISION AND CAME TO HOLD THAT IT CANNOT BE EXTENDED BEYOND THE OBJECT FOR WHICH IT IS ENACTED. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN REITERATED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT V. MOTHER INDIA REFRIGERATION INDUSTRIES (P.) LTD. [1985] 155 ITR 711/ 23 TAXMAN 8 BY LAYING DOWN THAT 'LEGAL FICTIONS ARE CREATED ONLY FOR SOME DEFINITE PURPOSE AND THESE MUST BE LIMITED TO THAT PURPOSE AND SHOULD NOT BE EXTENDED BEYOND THEIR LEGITIMATE FIELD'. IN CIT V. ACE BUILDERS (P.) LTD. [2006] 281 ITR 210 /[2005] 144 TAXMAN 855 (BOM), THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH C OURT CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF A CASE IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS A PARTNER IN A FIRM WHICH WAS DISSOLVED IN THE YEAR 1984 AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ALL OTTED A FLAT TOWARDS THE CREDIT IN THE CAPITAL ASSET WITH THE FIRM. THE ASSE SSEE SHOWED THE FLAT AS CAPITAL ASSET IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND DEPRECIAT ION WAS CLAIMED AND ALLOWED FROM YEAR TO YEAR. IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR REL EVANT TO ASST. YEAR 1992- 93, THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE FLAT AND INVESTED THE NET SALE PROCEEDS IN A SCHEME ELIGIBLE U/S.54E OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY DECLARE D NIL INCOME UNDER THE HEAD 'CAPITAL GAINS'. THE AO FORMED THE VIEW THAT S INCE THE BLOCK OF BUILDING CEASED TO EXIST ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF FLAT DURING THE YEAR, THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF THE FLAT WAS LIABLE TO BE TAKEN AS CO ST OF ACQUISITION U/S.54E OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER HELD THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD AVAILED DEPRECIATION ON SUCH ASSET, WHICH WAS OTHERWISE A LONG-TERM CAPI TAL ASSET, THE DEEMING PROVISION U/S.50 WOULD APPLY AND IT WOULD BE TREATE D AS CAPITAL GAIN ON THE SALE OF SHORT-TERM CAPITAL ASSET AND HENCE NO BENEF IT U/S.54E COULD BE ALLOWED. WHEN THE MATTER CAME UP BEFORE THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, IT WAS NOTICED THAT SUB-SECTIONS (1) AND (2) OF SEC . 50 CONTAINED A DEEMING PROVISION AND SUCH FICTION WAS RESTRICTED ONLY TO T HE MODE OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN CONTAINED IN SECTIONS 48 AND 49 AND HE NCE IT DID NOT APPLY TO OTHER PROVISIONS. THE ASSESSEE WAS HELD TO BE ELIGI BLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S.54E IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL GAIN ARISING OUT OF THE CAPIT AL ASSET ON WHICH DEPRECIATION WAS ALLOWED. 11.4 IN VIEW OF THE AFORENOTED JUDGMENTS RENDERED BY TH E HON'BLE APEX COURT AND THAT OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH C OURT, IT IS CLEAR THAT A ITA NO.6197/MUM/2016 M/S AUTOMOBILE PRODUCTS OF INDIA LTD. 13 DEEMING PROVISION CAN BE APPLIED ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE SITUATION SPECIFICALLY GIVEN AND HENCE CANNOT GO BEYOND THE E XPLICIT MANDATE OF THE SECTION. TURNING TO SEC. 50C, IT IS SEEN THAT THE D EEMING FICTION OF SUBSTITUTING ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE VALU E BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY AS FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION IS APPLICA BLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF 'LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH. IF THE CAPITAL ASSET UNDER TRA NSFER CANNOT BE DESCRIBED AS 'LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH', THEN SEC. 50C WILL CEAS E TO APPLY. FROM THE FACTS OF THIS CASE NARRATED ABOVE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE AS SESSEE WAS ALLOTTED LEASE RIGHT IN THE PLOT FOR A PERIOD OF SIXTY YEARS, WHIC H RIGHT WAS FURTHER ASSIGNED TO M/S. PATHIK CONSTRUCTION IN THE YEAR IN QUESTION . IT IS AXIOMATIC THAT THE LEASE RIGHT IN A PLOT OF LAND ARE NEITHER 'LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH' AS SUCH NOR CAN BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE SCOPE OF 'LAND OR BUILDI NG OR BOTH'. THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN A CAPITAL ASSET BEING 'LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH' AND ANY 'RIGHT IN LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH' IS WELL RECOGNI ZED UNDER THE I.T. ACT. SEC. 54D DEALS WITH CERTAIN CASES IN WHICH CAPITAL GAIN ON COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LAND AND BUILDING IS CHARGED. SUB-SE C.(1) OF SEC. 54D OPENS WITH : 'SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (2 ), WHERE THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISES FROM THE TRANSFER BY WAY OF COMPULSORY ACQUI SITION UNDER ANY LAW OF A CAPITAL ASSET, BEING LAND OR BUILDING OR ANY RIGH T IN LAND OR BUILDING, FORMING PART OF AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING..'. IT I S PALPABLE FROM SEC. 54D THAT 'LAND OR BUILDING' IS DISTINCT FROM 'ANY RIGHT IN LAND OR BUILDING'. SIMILAR POSITION PREVAILS UNDER THE W.T. ACT, 1957 ALSO. SE CTION 5(1) AT THE MATERIAL TIME PROVIDED FOR EXEMPTION IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN A SSETS. CLAUSE ( XXXII ) OF SEC. 5(1) PROVIDED THAT 'THE VALUE, AS DETERMINED I N THE PRESCRIBED MANNER, OF THE INTEREST OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSETS (NOT BEING ANY LAND OR BUILDING OR ANY RIGHTS IN LAND OR BUILDING OR ANY ASSET REFERRE D TO IN ANY OTHER CLAUSES OF THIS SUB-SECTION) FORMING PART OF AN INDUSTRIAL UND ERTAKING' SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM TAX. HERE ALSO IT IS WORTH NOTING THAT A DISTI NCTION HAS BEEN DRAWN BETWEEN 'LAND OR BUILDING' ON ONE HAND AND 'OR ANY RIGHTS IN LAND OR BUILDING' ON THE OTHER. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT WE ARE DEAL ING WITH SPECIAL PROVISION FOR FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION IN CERTAIN CASES U/ S.50C, WHICH IS A DEEMING PROVISION, THE FICTION CREATED IN THIS SECTION CANN OT BE EXTENDED TO ANY ASSET OTHER THAN THOSE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED THEREIN. AS SEC. 50C APPLIES ONLY TO A CAPITAL ASST, BEING LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH, IT CA NNOT BE MADE APPLICABLE TO LEASE RIGHTS IN A LAND. AS THE ASSESSEE TRANSFERRED LEASE RIGHT FOR SIXTY YEARS IN THE PLOT AND NOT LAND ITSELF, THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.50C CANNOT BE INVOKED. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDER ATION IN THE INSTANT CASE BE TAKEN AS RS.2.50 CRORES. 12. TO SUM UP, WE HOLD THAT CAPITAL GAIN ON THE TRANSA CTION OF ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE RIGHTS IN THE PLOT IS TO BE COMPUTED IN THE Y EAR IN QUESTION BY ADOPTING THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION ON 25-08-2005 AT RS .2.50 CRORES AND THE COST OF ACQUISITION SHALL BE WORKED OUT AFRESH AS PER LA W BY THE AO BY TAKING THE MARKET VALUE OF LEASE RIGHTS FOR SIXTY YEARS IN THE PLOT AS ON 16-08-2004. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTIC AL PURPOSES. 2.2. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE ORDER, NOW WE SHALL ANALYZE THE CASE OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE, WHEREIN, THE ITA NO.6197/MUM/2016 M/S AUTOMOBILE PRODUCTS OF INDIA LTD. 14 FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED I N THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE AND TRADING OF AUTO COMPONE NTS, DECLARED LOSS OF RS.22,28,31,400/- AND IN THE REVIS ED RETURN, THE LOSS WAS DECLARED AT RS.20,24,58,023/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3)(II) R .W.S 147 OF THE ACT, DETERMINING THE LOSS AT RS.16,64,58 ,023/-. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSE SSMENT MADE ADDITION OF RS.3 CRORES BY WAY OF DIFFERENCE I N STAMP DUTY VALUATION. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THA T THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH M/S HOUSING DEVELOPMENT & IMPROVEMENT INDIA PVT. LTD. GRANTING DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS IN RESPECT OF BHANDOOP PROPERTY FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.83 CRORES AND TH E STAMP DUTY VALUATION WAS ALSO OF THE SAME AMOUNT. IN THE STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE SALE CONSID ERATION WAS SHOWN AT RS.79 CRORES COMPUTING THE LONG TERM C APITAL LOSS OF RS.3,67,45,162/-. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICE R ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AS TO WHY THE PROVISION OF SECTIO N 53C MAY NOT BE INVOKED. IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE N OTICE, ISSUED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE E XPLAINED THAT SUBSEQUENT TO AGREEMENT DATED 22/03/2004, A ITA NO.6197/MUM/2016 M/S AUTOMOBILE PRODUCTS OF INDIA LTD. 15 PHYSICAL SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY WAS UNDERTAKEN, WHE REIN, THE ACTUAL AREA WAS FOUND AT 01,20,133.30 SQ. MT. A S AGAINST 1,27,606.70 SQ. MTS. MENTIONED IN THE AGREE MENT DATED 22/03/2004 AND THUS THE SALE CONSIDERATION WA S REDUCED TO RS.80 CRORES IN PLACE OF RS.83 CRORES. T HUS, THE SHARE OF SICAL ALSO REDUCED FROM RS.30 CRORES TO RS .27 CRORES. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DU LY REPRODUCED AT PAGE-24 ONWARDS OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER . HOWEVER, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIE D WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE INVOKED SECT ION 53C OF THE ACT AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.3 CRORES TOWARD LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS FROM THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMEN T RIGHTS. THERE IS UNCONTROVERTED FINDING IN THE IMPU GNED ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE NECESSARY DETAILS BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND IN FACT THE REVISED A REA WAS 1,20,133.30 SQ. MTS. AS AGAINST 1,27,606.70 SQ. MTS . MENTIONED IN THE TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT. ADMITTEDLY, AS PER THE ACTUAL AREA OF THE LAND, THERE WAS A SHORT FALL OF ABOUT 7473 SQ. MTS., WHICH WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF ATUL G. PURANIK ITA NO.6197/MUM/2016 M/S AUTOMOBILE PRODUCTS OF INDIA LTD. 16 VS INCOME TAX OFFICER (11 ITR (AT) 120)(MUM.), DCIT VS TAJENDRA SINGH 16 ITR (AT) 45 (KOL.) AND INCOME TAX OFFICER VS PASUPATI ELECTRODS PVT. LTD. ITA NO.3892/DEL/2010. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS FURTH ER FORTIFIED BY THE DECISION FROM HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND THE RATIO LAID DOWN THEREIN IN CIT VS GREENFIEL D HOTELS & ESTATE PVT. LTD. (245 TAXMAN 125)(BOM.) THUS, TH ERE WAS NO BASIS FOR INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, CONSEQUENTLY, THE STAND OF THE LD. COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) IS AFFIRMED. THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 3. THE NEXT GROUND RAISED PERTAINS TO DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.60 LAKHS, BEING CAPITAL GAINS, NOT O FFERED FOR TAXATION WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE TRUE FACTS AND NO EXPLANATION WAS ADDUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR DEFENDED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFF ICER WHEREAS, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DEFENDED THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 3.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS , IN BRIEF, ITA NO.6197/MUM/2016 M/S AUTOMOBILE PRODUCTS OF INDIA LTD. 17 ARE THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED A SUM OF R S.60 LAKHS RECEIVED FROM M/S SONY INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. WHEREAS, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IT WAS R ECEIVED BY WAY OF EARNEST DEPOSIT VIDE MOU DATED 14/02/1992 FO R GRANTING DEVELOPMENT RIGHT. HOWEVER, THE SAID AGRE EMENT COULD NOT BE EXECUTED AS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS DECLARED SICK UNIT ANT WAS REGISTERED WITH BIFR IN OCTOBER 1992. ON SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF BIFR, THE IMPUGNED A MOUNT WAS DIRECTED TO BE RETURNED BACK AND THE MOU STOOD ANNULLED IN TOTO. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY I N THE CONCLUSION OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEAL) IN DELETING THE ADDITION. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 05/06/2018. SD/- (G. MANJUNATHA) SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) '# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $# / JUDICIAL MEMBER % & MUMBAI; - DATED : 05/06/2018 F{X~{T? P.S/. .. , ITA NO.6197/MUM/2016 M/S AUTOMOBILE PRODUCTS OF INDIA LTD. 18 %$&'()(*& / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ./01 / THE APPELLANT 2. 2301 / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 4 4 % 5$ , ( ./ ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. 4 4 % 5$ / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. 78 2$ ! , 4 ./( .! , % & / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 9' :& / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , % & / ITAT, MUMBAI