TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 394
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....long term capital gain; (ii) Addition of Rs. 27,76,90,000/- on the amount returned; (iii) Addition of Rs. 28,60,000/- towards the amount spent on various legal matters. 3. Representatives of both the sides was heard at length. Case records carefully perused and with the assistance of the Ld. Counsel, we have carefully considered the documentary evidences brought on record in the form of Paper Books in the light of Rule 18(6) of the ITAT Rules. 4. The appellant under consideration was engaged in the business of financing and investing and it also trades in shares and commodities though not on regular basis. The business of financing and investing included lending/advancing money standing guarantor. Return of income wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....taken to recover the loan by the lender and no money was received by the assessee for its benefit or use in view of the judgement of Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Thressiamma Abraham (1997) 227 ITR 802 and Addl. CIT Spl. Range-26, New Delhi vs Glad Investments (P) Ltd. (2006) ITD 227 (Delhi)." 7. The reply of the assessee did not find any favour of the Assessing Officer who was of the firm belief that the assessee was the owner of the land title and freely possessed the land at the time of sale and the land was sold in the market and the sale consideration has been received by the assessee in its bank accounts and, therefore, the sale consideration confirms the receipt of the assessee. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t since the Sale Deed itself mentioned that there was no mortgage, therefore, it cannot be said that the sale was forced sale. 11. But, we find that under Clause (j) of the same Deed, it has been specially mentioned that the vendor had created first charge/equitable mortgage on the said entire land in favour of the IBFSL by Mortgage Deed dated 06.03.2012 and the Mortgage Deed was registered with the Office of Registrar of Companies of Delhi and Haryana and the said land had been redeemed in favour of the vendor on 10.04.2015. 12. Further, we find that as per the payment schedule mentioned in the said Deed at page 7, we find that Rs. 3 crores was received upto 09.04.2015 and on payment of Rs. 3 crores to IBFSL, the mortgage was release....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ender or the sale was at free will and whether any benefit actually accrued/received by the assessee. 15. A careful consideration of the facts on record show that the appellant company received the entire sale consideration and it cannot be said that it was a forced sale due to the pressure mounted by IBFSL. It may be possible that the plot of lands were sold under the vigil and direction of IBFSL but the fact remains that the entire sale consideration was realized by the appellant and thereafter the sale consideration was taken by IBFSL in discharge of its loan. 16. It may be possible that the buyer desired the transfer of title from the owner to avoid any litigation with the owner in future and therefore, IBFSL, after receiving Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f listed companies which were placed with IBFSL as securities, the borrower companies informed the assessee that once the outstanding liability repaid to IBFSL and as and when the shares held as security are released by IBFSL, the shares of the amount equal to the amount paid by the assessee as guarantor would be given to the assessee. Since the shares were sold by the lender company to recover its debts, therefore, borrower companies could not get their shares back and could not transfer the shares to the assessee. 18. Subsequently, a Memorandum of settlement dated 16.03.2015 was entered as per which an amount of Rs. 36.50 crores was accepted as full and final settlement against Rs. 64,26,92,000/- recoverable from Carissa Investment Pri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th no choice but to write off the balance Rs. 27,76,92,000/-. 22. In our considered view, the entire transaction cannot be considered as the colorable device as the same was never entered with any intent to defraud the Revenue. We find that all the transactions were undertaken with third parties through bank accounts or registered Mortgage Deeds etc. in the regular course of business and were duly recorded in the books of accounts. Nothing could be managed as the transactions were spread over a period of five years. 23. Due to mayhem in the stock market in the year 2008, the stocks of the listed companies nose-dived and the borrowers suffered huge losses, nothing was recoverable from them and there was no point in filing legal suit. I....