BHAVANA SHASHIKANT GHONE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 12(2),, PUNE

This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2014-15 is directed against the CIT(A) - 8, Pune’s order dated 03/01/2018 passed in case No. PN/CIT(A) -8/ ITO, Wd. 12(2)/253/2017-18/596 involving proceeding u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ; in short “the Act”. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

It emerges at the outset that the assessee’s sole substantive ground challenging section 56(2)(vii)(b) addition of Rs.67,61,000/- pertaining to the alleged purchase/acquisition of the asset i.e. plot no. J326 in MIDC industrial area, hardly requires us to delve deeper in the relevant factual matrix for the reasons hereunder.

We note with the able assistance both the parties as well as from a perusal of assessee’s paper book running into 126 pages that her vendor namely M/s. General Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. had acquired leasehold rights in the foregoing industrial plot/ factory vide its agreement dated 09.08.1984 and 16.10.1986; as the case may be. It thereafter executed a similar lease deed in assessee’s favour on 04.08.2014 which has made learned lower authorities to invoke the impugned addition in the latter’s stands forming subject matter of adjudication before us.

The first and foremost issue that arises for our apt adjudication in this backdrop herein is as whether such leasehold rights are covered under the statutory definition of “any immovable property” u/s.56 (2)(vii)(b) as defined in Explanation (d)(i) as “being land or building or both.” We note that the legislature has used an identical expression in section 50C(1) of the Act wherein various judicial precedents (2017) 77 taxmann.com 308 (Bom.) CIT Vs. Greenfield Hotels and Estates Pvt. Ltd., (2015) 55 taxmann.com 171 (Pune) KancastPvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, (2011) 4SCC 36 (SC) GVK industries Ltd. V/s. ITO and 2020 – TIOL-307-ITAT-Kolkata hold that such a leasehold right