RITA GOYAL,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), DEHRADUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3970/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 June 2025AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that Section 43CA, which was invoked for the addition, was inserted by the Finance Act, 2013, effective from April 1, 2014, and applicable from Assessment Year 2014-15 onwards. Since the assessment year in question was 2013-14, the invocation of Section 43CA was not sustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold plots of land for Rs. 50 lakhs, declaring capital gains. The Assessing Officer treated this as business income and added Rs. 95,45,830/- by invoking Section 50C read with Section 43CA of the Act.

What were the issues?

Whether Section 43CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, could be invoked for an assessment year prior to its effective date. Whether the transfer of land constituted capital gains or business income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 50C,Section 43CA,Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “DB”, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI M. BALAGANESH

Hearing: 20.03.2025Pronounced: 13.06.2025
1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Dehradun’s order dated 16.03.2018 passed in case no. 10366/CIT(A)/DDN/2016-17(362500440120118), involving proceedings under sections 143(3)/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. case file perused.

2.

A perusal of the instant case file indicates at the outset that both the learned lower authorities have added assessee’s alleged business profits of Rs.95,45,830/- on transfer of the corresponding plots of land thereby holding her to have indulged in the real estate business, in assessment order dated 28.12.2017 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

3.

We now come to the basic relevant facts. The assessee had admittedly sold her duly plotted land vide four sale deeds to Sh. Deepak Dubey and his wife Smt. Shubha Dubey for Rs. 50 lakhs in total involving as may sale instances. Learned Assessing Officer’s assessment discussion reads that he firstly rejected the assessee’s claim declaring capital gains than business income; and, therefore, invoked section 50C r.w.s. 43CA of the Act to arrive at fair market value of the above four plots coming to Rs.1,01,60,000/- as reduced by cost of acquisition of Rs.5,60,170/-; respectively, thereby adding business income of Rs.95,45,830/- forming subject matter of adjudication herein. Learned CIT(A) has upheld the above assessment findings against the assessee.

4.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s vehement submission reiterating their

2 | P a g e respective stands. We make it clear first of all that the assessee had admittedly declared capital gains which stand treated as business income in the Assessing Officer’s assessment discussion. He has thereafter invoked section 43CA r.w.s. 50C of the Act to add the above business income in her hands.

5.

Faced with this situation, the Revenue could hardly dispute that section 43CA providing for such an addition came to be inserted in the Act vide Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 01.04.2014 and applicable from assessment year 2014-15 onwards as per the explanatory notice thereof whereas we are in assessment year 2013-14 only. We thus conclude in this factual backdrop that the learned lower authorities’ action invoking section 43CA addition in the assessee’s case is not sustainable in law in very terms. The impugned addition of Rs.95,45,830/- is hereby deleted in other words.

More judgments on Section 50C

All 3,223 judgments and leading authorities on Section 50C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →