TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 930
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated 16th March, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "C" Bench, Kolkata (the `Tribunal') in ITA No. 330/Kol/2013 for the assessment year 2009-10. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration:- 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Tribunal erred in facts as well as in law in treating the sale of the chemical unit of the assessee company as itemised sale and not a slump sale? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 31,13,58,000/- made by the assessing officer under section 50B read with section 2(42C) and explanation 1 to section 2(19AA) of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al unit at Gujarat and Haldia (West Bengal). Each of these units was independent profit centres for which separate books of accounts were maintained by the assessee company. The assessing officer found that the assessee company has sold its chemical unit at Haldia to M/s. Petro Carbons and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and the copy of the agreement was produced. On examining the agreement, the assessing officer was of the view that the same qualified as a slump sale as defined under Section 2(42C) of the Act and accordingly, proceeded to complete the assessment by an order dated 28th December, 2011. Aggrieved by such order the assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI, Kolkata [CIT(A)]. It was contended that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n under Section 260A of the Act is entitled to consider whether there is any error committed by the Tribunal, more particularly a factual error warranting interference by this Court. At the first blush the submission of the learned Standing Counsel appears to be attractive but on a close scrutiny we find that the authorities as well as the Tribunal have examined the documents which were made available before it. The Tribunal after going through the documents, more particularly the agreement and the addendum to the agreement and Annexure J found that the unit itself was never sold and/or transferred as a going concern in toto but only assets of the unit was sold and transferred to the purchaser on a pre-determined and agreed price for each t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ITR 100 in which it was held that though the sale of the undertaking was for a lump sum consideration, Section 50 of the Act in respect of depreciable assets will override all other provisions and for depreciable assets, the value has to be determined in accordance with the principles of block of assets, read with Section 43(6) of the Act. There are other decisions which were also noticed and referred to by the Tribunal. Thus, we find that the Tribunal has not committed any error of fact calling for an interference by this Court. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant revenue placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1976 SC 163 (Afsar Shaikh and Another Versus Soleman Bibi and Others). This de....