TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 333
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "01. That the Learned C.I.T. (A) 2, Rajkot has grievously erred in confirming that the reassessment proceedings v/s 147 were validly initiated. 02. That alternatively and without prejudice to the above, the Learned C.I.T. (A) - 2, Rajkot has grievously erred in confirming the addition made u/s 50C of the of Rs.82,27,950/- 02 That the appellant craves for leave to add, amend or modify the grounds of appeal." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a cooperative Society engaged in the business of banking and is a duly recognised multistate scheduled bank. During the year under consideration, the assessee filed its original return of income declaring a taxable income of Rs. 6,09,18,830/- which incl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g that the assessee has failed to prove that the sale of the impugned property and capital gains thereon had been declared in the return of income. On merits, Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that what the assessee was sold was not a leasehold property, but the ownership rights in the property had been transferred under the impugned sale deed and therefore tenancy right of the buyer had been converted into ownership rights by the sale deed under consideration, where the assessee was shown to the landlord property. While dismissing the appeal on merits, Ld. CIT(Appeals) made the following observations: "3.1.4 Decision Having considered facts and circumstances of the case and rival contentions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order of Ld. CIT(Appeals). The counsel for the assessee submitted that the capital gains on the aforesaid property was duly reflected in the return of income filed by the assessee and drew our attention to page 2 of the paper book to show that an amount of Rs. 43,82,175/-were offered as capital gains in the computation of income for the impugned assessment year. The counsel for the assessee further submitted that the assessee had sold leasehold rights in respect of 50 properties situated in Sitaram building, and furnished before us a list of such properties transferred to various persons. He submitted that the assessee had only sold the lessor rights in such property to the tena....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....end that the assessee had only transferred its "leasehold rights" in the said property and no ownership rights are transferred by the impugned sale deed. He relied on pages 61-73 of the paper book to contend that various judicial precedents have held that section 50C of the Act is not attracted in case of transfer of leasehold rights in the property. The Ld. DR in response relied upon the Lucknow ITAT decision in the case of Shri Hari Om Gupta in ITA number 222/LKW/2013, held that leasehold right of the land for 99 years is a capital asset to which the provisions of section 50C of the Act are applicable. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. Interestingly, in case of Shri Hari Om Gupta in ITA number 2....