INCOME TAX OFFICER , PIRAMAL CHAMBERS - INCOME TAX OFFICE, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA vs. GO GO GARMENTS , MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: JUSTICE (RETD.) C V BHADANG & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM
Per Padmavathy S, AM:
This appeal by the revenue is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [In short
'CIT(A)'] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated
03.07.2024 for Assessment Years (AY) 2013-14. The grounds raised by the revenue are as under:
“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the action of Ld. CIT(A) to delete the addition of Rs. 6,80,11,020/- made u/s. 50C holding that assessee was not beneficial owner without considering the facts that the Registered Sale Deed dated 21.05.2012 for sale of three commercial galas has been signed by the Mr. Vinodkumar Goenka in the capacity of partner of the assessee firm, which shows that the said galas were sold by the firm and not by Mr. Vinodkumar Goenka as individual capacity?"
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the action of Ld. CIT(A) to delete the addition of Rs. 6,80,11,020/- made u/s. 50C holding that assessee was not beneficial owner without considering the fact that the assessee firm had sold three commercial galas as per the Registered Deed dated 21.05.2012 giving its name and PAN number being the Statutory Legal Owner of the said galas?"
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee and deleted the addition of Rs. 6,80,11,020/- made u/s. 50C on account of sale of three commercial galas without appreciating the merits of the addition and without considering the facts that it is clearly mentioned in the Registered Sale Deed dated 21.05.2012 at page numbered that- The Memorandum Records Family Settlement dated 01.07.2003 is not registered at the O/o. the Sub-