CIT -15(2), NEW DELHI vs. LOGIX BUILDESTATE PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s/respondent’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex parte. 3. Learned CIT(DR) vehemently argues during the course of hearing that the CIT(A) herein has erred in law and on facts in reversing Assessing Officer’s action making section 43CA addition of Rs.42,74,86,285/- representing the difference between actual lease price and stamp value of Rs. 98,40,30,157/- in assessee’s hands; in the course of assessment framed on 30th December, 2017. Learned CIT(A)’s detailed discussion deleting the impugned addition reads as under: “8. Findings & determination: 8.1 I have carefully considered the assessment order, submissions by the appellant, the different agreements, order of Addl. Collector and other details which is stated to have been produced before AO. 8.2 The AO has considered the value of property @ 10800 per sq. mtr. stated to be as stamp duty value for the property subleased / sold by the appellant after invoking the provisions of section 43CA of the Act. On the other hand, the appellant has stated that it has correctly taken the value of property, as per the stamp duty rate, fixed by the Addl. Collector, Gautam Budh Nagar, for the bigger plots @ 7200 per sq. mtr. 8.3 It has been observed from the details provided that the lease agreement initially was entered on 26.11.2012 where Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority has allotted plot to the appellant company. A further agreement was entered between appellant and M/s. Shubhkamna Advert Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. on 14.12.2012 to sublease all rights of the sald plot of land for a consideration of Rs. 7200 per sq. mtr. as per the rate of stamp duty fixed by the ADM. It has been stated that only 77297.76 sq. mtr. has been allotted to four parties as follows:

M/s Oasis Realtech Pvt. Ltd. (37,500 sq. mtr.) 3 | P a g e

M/s Growth Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. (18,440.92 sq. mtr.)

M/s Sunwhite Infratech Pvt. Ltd. (11253.81 sq. mtr)

M/s UG infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (10,103.02 sq. mtr.)

4 As per the order dated 22.04.2013 In case no. 146/2012-13, the Addl. District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar has mentioned in the case of appellant company that in the absence of the rate for land for residential township, the rate of land for stamp towards smaller group housing is Rs. 10800 per sq. mtr. However, for bigger lands the rate has been determined at a minimum of Rs. 7200 per sq. mtr. for stamp purposes. In this order, a reference has been made for higher value i.e. Rs. 10300 per sq. mtr. (Rs 10800 for the period under consideration) for the plot having a maximum of 4000 sq. mtr. It is seen that each of the land subleased by the appellant is more than 4000 sq. mtr. and therefore, the appellant has paid Rs. 7200 per sq. mtr. as per the rate determined by the ADM in his order being each plot more than 4000 sq. mtr. The appellant has also taken and disclosed the value of land with reference to the above rate of Fis. 7200 per sq. mtr.

5 Looking to the facts of this case and also considering the submissions and the agreement for sublease to 4 parties mentioned above as well as the order of the ADM in the case of appellant, determining Rs. 7200 per sq. mtr. rate for the land above 4000 sq. mtr. is found to be rightly taken by the appellant which is in confirmity of the above documents and order by ADM. The AO in his order has erroneously taken the value @ Rs. 10800 per sq. mtr. treating it as smaller residential plots, which is in fact more than 4000 sq. mtr. each. The provisions of section 43CA of the Act is not found applicable.

6 In view of above, it is held that the rate for stamp duty is applicable @7200 per sq. mtr. in the case of appellant and the AO is directed to adopt the same accordingly. This ground of appeal is allowed as appellant gets full relief.

During appellate proceedings, the appellant pointed out that there is certain error in calculation of the disallowance. AO is accordingly requested to verify the same and may brought it on record for future references.”

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the Revenue’s vehement contentions and the assessee’s detailed paper-book 4 | P a g e dated 29th October, 2024 running into 1 to 108 pages. A perusal thereof reveals that the relevant transfer herein is only of “lease” rights between the assessee and its sub-lessee than that of “land and building” only. This fact has indeed gone unrebutted from the Revenue side during the course of hearing. 5. Faced with this situation, we hereby quote (2013) 39 taxmann.com 123. (Mumbai - Trib.)] CIT v. Greenfield Hotels & Estates (P.) that section 50C addition, pari materia to section 43CA herein, does not cover in its ambit of transfer of “leasehold” rights in land and building, as the case may be. Learned CIT(DR) raised her vehement contention that their lordship’s foregoing conclusion would not cover the addition made under section 43CA of the Act. We are of the considered view that the legislature has indeed included and used the corresponding twin categories of assets i.e. land and building only in both section 50C and now in section 43CA inserted in the Act vide Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 01.04.2014 We thus adopt their lordship’s detailed discussion excluding “lease” rights in such land and building as out of the purview of section 43CA of the Act in very terms to reject the Revenue’s instant sole substantive ground. Ordered accordingly. 5 | P a g e

All other relevant pleadings on merits stand rendered academic, at this stage. 7. This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th January, 2025 (S. RIFAUR RAHMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER