TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 931
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The questions of law proposed in the appeal are as under:- "3.1. WHETHER in the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble ITAT erred in holding that it is for the parties to settle the sale consideration for transfer of respective shares in the property while the Hon'ble ITAT failed to note that the parties were closely related and there was no proper basis for settlement of sale consideration between them and it was done with a view to evade payment of tax? 3.2 WHETHER in the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble ITAT erred in upholding Ld CIT(A) order based on additional evidence without complying with the provisions of Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962 and thus failed to follow the law laid down by this Hon'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 31.03.2015, held that the respondent had the sole ownership right over the plot of land and therefore, should have received the minimum amount of sale consideration at the Circle Rate of Rs. 27,60,03,387/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Crores Sixty Lakhs Three Thousand Three Hundred and Eighty Seven Only). The Assessing Officer, therefore, added an amount of Rs. 9,60,03,387/- (Rupees Nine Crores Sixty Lakhs Three Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Seven Only) to the income of the respondent under Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 8. The Assessment Order was challenged in appeal by the respondent, being Appeal No. 91/15-16. The same was allowed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter refer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee and M/s ESS ESS Metals and Electricals were the vendors of their respective rights in the land and the recitals of the sale deed are clear in stating that out of the sale consideration of Rs. 35 crores assessee had to receive Rs. 18 crores and M/s ESS ESS Metals and Electricals had to receive Rs. 17 crores. 10. In the circumstances, the admitted facts prove that in respect of the land that was sold in favour of M/s HH Buildtech Private Limited both the assessee and M/s ESS ESS Metals and Electricals have rights in different capacities. M/s ESS ESS Metals and Electricals held the leasehold rights for 99 years and since the lease was in the year 1975 and the assessee purchased the property between 1997 and 2010, the rights acquired ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....S ESS Metals and Electricals for 99 years in respect of the very same property which was the subject matter of the sale. 12. In this perspective of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the Ld. CIT(A) had reached a right conclusion on proper appreciation of the facts available on the record and the reasoning or conclusion of the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order is beyond the pale of challenge by the Revenue. We, therefore, decline to interfere with the impugned order." 10. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in terms of Section 48 of the Act the entire sale consideration should have been disclosed as income by the respondent and thereafter, the amount paid to M/s ESS ESS Metals and Electricals could have been c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ifurcated between two right-holders over the land. The transaction being collusive was not the case of the Assessing Officer. 14. Keeping in view the concurrent findings of fact by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, this Court is of the view that the said findings should not be lightly interfered with. In fact, the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar Aggarwal & Anr. vs. Thawar Das (through LRs), (1999) 7 SCC 303 has reiterated that under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with the orders of the Courts below is confined to hearing on substantial question of law and interference with finding of the fact is not warranted if it involves re-appreciation of evidence. Further, the Suprem....