TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (5) TMI 331
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the appellant and the respondent that provision of section 50B of the Act has came into effect from 1-4-2000 and agreement of sale is dated 31-1-1990. 3. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent and the contentions urged on the finding of the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal. 4. The substantial question of law that would arise for consideration is framed as follows: "Whether the finding of the Tribunal in holding that section 50 of the Income-tax Act is not attracted and in confirming the order of the Appellate Authority which has reversed the order of the Assessing Authority is perverse and arbitrary and calls for interference in this appeal?" ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 50 of the Act. The Appellate Authority by an order dated 23-12-1996 held that the sale in question dated 31-1-1990 was a slump sale and did not constitute capital gains and set aside the order passed by the Assessing Authority regarding demand for tax on capital gains and interest imposed thereon and allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority dated 23-12-1996, revenue preferred an appeal ITA No. 155/Bang/1997 to the Tribunal and the assessee had filed a cross objection No. 49/Bang/2003 being aggrieved by the finding against the assessee holding that the transaction dated 31-1-1990 was a slump sale and did not attract section 50 and it attracted under section 50B of the Act. The Tribunal by an order dated 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tent is also liable to be set aside. 8. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the agreement of sale and the material on record shows that the impugned transaction is a slump sale and not a capital gains as defined under section 2(42)A of the Act and once it is held that impugned transaction is a slump sale, only capital gains whether long-term or short-term is attracted, hence, the finding of the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal is justified. He further submitted that even assuming that the order passed by the Tribunal and the Appellate Authority is arbitrary and perverse, it has not been opposed by proper reasoning showing that it is not a slump sale. The order passed by the Assessing Officer cannot also be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case on pure question of fact is perverse cannot be sustained. The same cannot be gone into in this appeal. It is also clear from the order passed by the Assessing Officer that the Assessing Officer has proceeded on the basis presuming that transaction attracts capital gains and treated transaction as short-term capital gains under section 50 of the Act and there is no finding as to whether the impugned transaction is a slump sale, which attract capital gains cannot be sustained. 12. Under these circumstances, in view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, we held that the order passed by the Tribunal, Appellate Authority and the Assessing Officer is liable to be set aside and requires to be remitte....