SHRI SATISHCHANDRA HARISHANKAR JOSHI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(5), AHMEDABAD

ITA 2410/AHD/2016Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 October 2017AY 2013-143 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal confirmed the addition of long-term capital gains to the assessee's income. It found no evidence to rebut the lower authorities' conclusion that the private limited company never became the owner of the factory building.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold a factory building, claiming it was sold by a private limited company and not by him as proprietor. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) disagreed, holding that the property remained in the assessee's name and the sale consideration was received in his proprietorship concern's bank account.

What were the issues?

Whether the capital gains arising from the sale of a factory building are taxable in the hands of the proprietor or a private limited company when the property was allotted and sold in the proprietor's name.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH AHMEDABAD

Hearing: 30.10.2017Pronounced: 31.10.2017

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH AHMEDABAD

BEFORE, SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No. 2410/Ahd/2016 (Assessment Year: 2013-14)

Satishchandra Harishankar Joshi 101, Divya Residency, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad - 380006 Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2)(5), Ahmedabad Respondent

PAN: ADFPJ4534Q

आवेदक क� ओर से/By Assessee : None राज�व क� ओर से/By Revenue : Shri Mahesh G. Jiwade, CIT. D.R. सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 30.10.2017 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 31.10.2017

ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14 arises against the CIT(A)-7, Ahmedabad’s order dated 23.06.2016 in case no. CIT(A)-7/163/15-16, upholding Assessing Officer’s action making addition of Rs.32,17,674/- as long term capital gains arising from sale of factory building, in proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”.

ITA No. 2410/Ahd/16 [Satishchandra H. Joshi vs. ITO] A.Y. 2013-14 - 2 -

Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. Case file reveals that the registry has already sent an RPAD notice to the assessee dated 29.09.2017. He is accordingly proceeded ex parte.

Relevant facts pertaining to the above solitary issue of long term capital gains addition are in a very narrow compass. The assessee is fair enough in not disputing sale of above immovable property in the nature of factory building. His only case has been that it is not he himself appearing as proprietor of M/s. Nagarjun Pharmaceuticals but the said entity has sold the above factory building in question. Learned CIT(A) rejects this contention in his lower appellate order as under:

“4.2 1 have considered the assessment order and the submissions made by the appellant During assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the appellant has sold Immovable property for Rs,51,00,000/- in his capacity as proprietor of M/s. Nagarjun Pharmaceuticals. The appellant contended, however, that this property had been sold by M/s. Nagarjun Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. wherein he was a director and that the capital gains arising from this transaction had been shown in the return of income of M/s. Nagarjun Pharmaceutical Pvt Ltd., A perusal of the submissions and the assessment order shows that the property was allotted in the name of M/s. Nagarjun Pharmaceuticals, which is the proprietorship concern of the appellant and remained in this name till the date of sale. The said property was not transferred to M/s. Nagarjun Pharmaceutical Pvt Ltd. at any time. The same was sold by the appellant himself as proprietor of M/s. Nagarjun Pharmaceuticls and-not by M/s. Nagarjun Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Not only this, even the sales consideration received by the appellant was received in the bank account of the proprietorship concern. In view of these facts, since the ownership of the property remained with the appellant from the date of allotment till the date of sale and was not transferred at any time to M/s. Nagarjun Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd., the capital gains arising from this sale would be taxable in the hands of the appellant and proprietor of M/s. Nagarjun Pharmaceutical As per the Act, the individual and the company are different persons separately assessable under the Income-tax Act. It is dear that the long term capital gain arising from the transaction of sale of property was to be taxed in the hands of the person owning the property which in this case is .the appellant as proprietor of M/s. Nagarjun Pharmaceuticals. In view of the same, the addition of Rs.32,17,674/- made by the Assessing Officer as long gain in the hands of the appellant is confirmed. Ground of appeal No, 1 is dismissed.”

We have heard learned Departmental Representative strongly supporting both the lower authorities’ action making impugned long term capital gain addition.

ITA No. 2410/Ahd/16 [Satishchandra H. Joshi vs. ITO] A.Y. 2013-14 - 3 -

There is no evidence in the case file produced at assessee’s behest which could rebut the above extracted CIT(A)’s conclusion that M/s. Nagarjun Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. had never become owner of the factory building in question. We therefore find no reason to interfere with the impugned addition. The same is accordingly confirmed. The assessee’s sole substantive ground fails.

This assessee’s appeal is dismissed.

[Pronounced in the open Court on this the 31st day of October, 2017.]

Sd/- Sd/- (N. K. BILLAIYA) (S. S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 31/10/2017

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →