SONAWALA INDUSTRIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. JT CIT (OSD) 4(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 683/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 September 2016AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal dismissed the first ground as not pressed. For the alternative ground, the tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to decide afresh in light of Section 50C(3) of the Act.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order confirming the DVO's valuation for capital gains. The assessee also raised an alternative ground regarding the adoption of stamp duty value for a specific plot as per Section 50C(3).

What were the issues?

Whether the stamp duty value should be adopted for computing capital gains when it is lower than the DVO's valuation, as per Section 50C(3).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 50C(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E ” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI RAJENDRA & SHRI C.N. PRASAD

Hearing: 26.07.2016Pronounced: 23.09.2016

आदेश / O R D E R

PER C.N. PRASAD, JM:

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-8, Mumbai dated 09.12.2013 pertaining to assessment year 2009-10.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds:

“1) The Commissioner of Income Tax-8 (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] erred in confirming the values of plot nos. 506 and 509 of Rs. 1,59,96,000/- arrived at by the DVO in computing the capital gains. The Appellants submit that since the properties are fully encroached by the protected tenant/ illegal tenants the consideration received by them of Rs.

50,00,000/- represents true market value and pray that the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD)-4(3), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the JCIT) be directed to accept the same in computing the capital gains.

Without prejudice to the above the CIT (A) erred in not accepting the Appellants contention that since the value of Rs.46,80,540 determined by the DVO for plot no.509 is less that the value ofRs.87,03,372 computed by the stamp authorities, the same should be adopted in computing capital gains as per section 50C(3) of the Act. The Appellants pray that the JCIT be given suitable directions in the matter”.

3.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submits that ground No. 1 regarding confirming the values of the plot No. 506 and 509 arrived at by the DVO in computing the capital gains is not pressed. Therefore, this ground raised by the assessee is dismissed as not pressed.

4.

However coming to the alternative ground, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the value of Plot No. 509 determined by the Stamp authorities is less than the value computed by DVO and therefore, the value as per stamp authorities should be adopted in computing capital gains as per the provisions of Sec. 50C(3) of the Act. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the matter may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding this issue in the light of the provisions of Sec. 50C(3) of the Act.

5.

On a query from the Bench to the Ld. Departmental Representative whether the matter should go back to the Assessing Officer to decide in view of the provisions of Sec. 50C(3), he has no serious objection.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →