TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 1540
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee:- "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in partly confirming the addition of Rs. 11,91,000/- under the deeming provisions of Section 50C of the I.T. Act, 1961 out of the total addition of Rs. 86,70,607/- made by the Assessing Officer when the provisions of section 50C do not apply in case of transfer of leasehold rights in land or building. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in giving direction to adopt indexed cost of acquisition between Rs. 14,91,000/- and Rs. 51,59,487/- when the issue was not part of grounds of appeal raised by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been omitted. iii) Therefore, It is prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set-aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored." 3. To adjudicate on this appeal, only a few material facts are required to be taken note of. During the relevant previous year the assessee sold a lease hold property for a sale consideration of Rs. 49,70,000/- but according to the Assessing Officer, the value of this property for the purpose of stamp duty valuation by the sub-registrar was Rs. 1,36,40,607/-. It was in this backdrop the Assessing Officer required the assessee to show cause as to why an addition of Rs. 86,70,607/-, being difference between the stamp duty value and the sale consideration not be brought to tax in terms of section 50C of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly considered facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. 6. So far as the question of enhancement by the learned CIT(A) is concerned, we find that it is undisputed position that the assessee was not put to notice with respect to the enhancement. A co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Monga Metal Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT - ITA No. 326/LKW/2013 - order dated 07.08.2013 - has held that such an action of the Assessing Officer i.e. of proposing enhancement without putting the assessee to specifically notice in this regard is unsustainable in law. While doing so, the co-ordinate bench, inter alia, observe d as follows :- "4. Having heard the rival submissions and from a careful perusal of record, we find that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m Trib)] in support of the proposition. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shri Kishan Das - ITA No. 64 of 2014, judgement dated 10.02.2014, has approved this school of thought and inter alia observed as follows :- "3. It is contended on behalf of the Revenue that the Tribunal fell into error because Section 50C does not make any distinction between properties of one kind and the other and that so long as the state authorities prescribed a different rate than the one involved in the transaction, such prescribed rate would be deemed the rate for the application for Section 50C. Contending that the distinction made in the present case between the fresh leasehold rights and the consideration payable and the residual rights was u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.......... ?. Section 50C, on the other hand, talks of, transfer by assessee of a capital asset being land or building or both. The contrast in language, given that Section 50C is a specific provision, which seeks to enact a presumption is significant. The valuation of the concerned State agency or the government that the cost of the land is, in the circumstances, higher, is determinative. We notice that in the present case, there has been no such valuation. That apart, the Tribunal adopted an approach which, with respect, appears to be correct, in that it took note of the proportionate transfer of leasehold rights for 54 years. If the Revenue's contentions were to be conceded, then in the given facts of case, if the leasehold rights for residu....