Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post an Article
Post a New Article
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Co Author :

In case of Co-Author, You may provide Username as per TMI records

Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Articles

Back

All Articles

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
- 0 - Views

ITAT asks the Govt. to bring out a mechanism to ensure tax recovery from ARCs/Banks on the sale of security assets

Date 13 Dec 2022
Written By
ITAT Calls for Clear Tax Recovery Process from Banks and ARCs Post-Asset Sale, Seeks Clarity on Transfer Dates
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Mumbai urged the government to establish a mechanism for tax recovery from Asset Reconstruction Companies (ARCs) or banks following the sale of security assets. In the case involving a director of a steel company, who provided land as collateral to the State Bank of India, the ITAT noted the lack of clarity on the transfer date of the property to the bank. The case was sent back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) to determine the year of transfer and recompute capital gains. The ITAT emphasized the need for a system to protect tax recovery in cases involving asset sales by banks and ARCs. - (AI Summary)

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench (“the ITAT”) in the case of Abbasbhai A. Upletawala v. Income Tax Officer Ward 16(1)(1) [2022 (12) TMI 503 - ITAT MUMBAI] asked the government to bring out a mechanism to ensure tax recovery on the sale of security assets from the Asset Reconstruction Companies (“the ARCs”) or banks. 

Facts:

Mr. Abbasbhai A. Upletawala (“the Appellant”) is the director of M/s Abid Steels Co Ltd (“the ASCL”) and had given a personal guarantee to, on behalf of the ASCL and in respect of its commercial borrowing from the State Bank of India (“the SBI”). The Appellant had owned a land measuring 2291.9 square meters, which he had purchased for Rs. 2 Lakh on August 22, 1983. The Appellant had given it as collateral security for the commercial borrowings to the SBI. The Appellant was also a party to the recovery proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (“the DRT”) as a director and personal guarantor to the ASCL.

The SBI entered into an assignment agreement on March 29, 2004 with Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd (“the ARCIL”), a company registered as a securitization and asset reconstruction company pursuant to Section 3 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (“the SARFAESI Act”) in which the property offered as collateral security by the Appellant to the SBI was assigned to ARCIL.

The ARCIL then, sold the property to Advent Developers Pvt Ltd (“the ADPL”) for Rs. 2,00,00,000 on September 1, 2015 whose market value was of Rs. 2,04,93,500 as per stamp duty valuation. The Appellant was the confirming party to the transaction between ARCIL and ADPL.

The Assessing Officer (“the AO”) noted that the confirming party had surrendered all rights, title and interest to the vendor and hence was liable to pay tax on the entire amount of Rs. 2,04,93,500 under long term capital gain and the Appellant failed to mention the same in the assessment for the assessment year 2006-07. The Appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeal) (“the CIT(A)”) but no success was achieved. 

Issue:

Whether the Appellant is liable to pay tax under long term capital gain on the sale of security assets?

Held:

The ITAT held as under:

  • It is not clear as to what is the date on which transfer took from the Appellant to SBI, neither there is any evidence in form of any documentation or Order of DRT in this regard.
  • The matter was remitted to the CIT(A) to record a specific finding on the year of transfer of property from the Appellant to SBI and recomputing the capital gains after giving a due and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Appellant.
  • It was also asked from the Government to seriously consider protecting the legitimate interests by ensuring some mechanism to ensure that the tax liability on the capital gains is duly recovered from the borrower whose property is sold, and when it is not possible to do so on account of the borrower’s genuine financial difficulties, from the person who receives the proceeds of the sale of such assets.
  • With the increasing number of cases in which recovery measures are enforced by selling properties, held by the bankers and ARCs as collateral securities, and inevitable liquidity or bankruptcy issues with such borrowers, there must already be good amount of such avoidable losses to the revenue which should be discontinued.
0 answers
Sort by

Old Query - New Comments are closed.

Hide

No Replies are present for this Article

Recent Articles