2017 (3) TMI 1965 - AT - Income Tax

Tax Appeal Dismissed: No Grounds Found for Challenging Section 50C Valuation of Leasehold Rights

Vidarbha Veneer Industries Versus The Income-tax Officer, Ward-7 (1), Nagpur

ITAT Nagpur dismissed the assessee's miscellaneous application seeking recall of a previous order. The Tribunal found no apparent mistake in the original ... Rectification of mistake - LTCG - Applicability of provisions of section 50C to the leasehold rights in the land - HELD THAT:- We find that in this ground of appeal the assessee has no where contested that provisions of section 50C were not applicable on leasehold properties. In these circumstances it cannot be said that there is a mistake apparent on record in not adjudicating the issue which has not been raised by way of grounds of appeal. Assessee conceded that there is no such mention in the grounds of appeal and that grounds of appeal were drafted by earlier counsel. Hence in our considered opinion, there is no mistake apparent from record in the aforesaid order of the Tribunal. Hence we dismiss the miscellaneous petition filed by the assessee. The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Nagpur, comprising Accountant Member Shri Shamim Yahya and Judicial Member Shri Ram Lal Negi, addressed a Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee seeking to recall the Tribunal's order in ITA No. 180/Nag/2010 for the assessment year 2005-06, dated December 18, 2015. The assessee argued that the provisions of section 50C were inapplicable to leasehold rights in land, referencing the Mumbai ITAT decision in Atul G. Puranik vs. ITO, which was allegedly overlooked by the Tribunal.Upon review, the Tribunal noted that the assessee did not contest the applicability of section 50C to leasehold properties in the original grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal focused on the alleged error by the Assessing Officer in determining Long Term Capital Gain based on Stamp Duty price instead of the Registered Valuers valuation. The Tribunal found no 'mistake apparent on record' regarding the non-adjudication of an unraised issue. The assessee's counsel admitted that the grounds of appeal lacked mention of the section 50C issue, attributing this to the previous counsel's drafting. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous application, concluding no error in the original order. The order was pronounced in open court on March 24, 2017.