TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 459
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which shows that the said galas were sold by the firm and not by Mr. Vinodkumar Goenka as individual capacity?" 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the action of Ld. CIT(A) to delete the addition of Rs. 6,80,11,020/- made u/s. 50C holding that assessee was not beneficial owner without considering the fact that the assessee firm had sold three commercial galas as per the Registered Deed dated 21.05.2012 giving its name and PAN number being the Statutory Legal Owner of the said galas?" 3. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee and deleted the addition of Rs. 6,80,11,020/- made u/s. 50C on account of sale of three commercial galas without appreciating the merits of the addition and without considering the facts that it is clearly mentioned in the Registered Sale Deed dated 21.05.2012 at page numbered that- The Memorandum Records Family Settlement dated 01.07.2003 is not registered at the O/o. the Sub-Registrar of Assurance hence the said property is still on the name of M/s. Go Go Garments in the records of The New Standard Engineering ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmitted that the impugned properties were removed from the business account of the Firm since the same is transferred to the outgoing partner Shri Vinod Kumar B Goenka. The AO however did not accept the submissions of the assessee for the reason that (i) Shri Vinod Kumar B Goenka has not filed any return of income and has not declared the Capital Gains arising on sale of the immovable properties. (ii) As per the sale-deed submitted by the assessee, it is the partnership firm which has executed the sale-deed and that Shri Vinod Kumar B Goenka has signed the sale-deed on behalf of the partnership firm. (iii) The settlement deed executed at the time of retirement settling the impugned properties to Shri Vinod Kumar B Goenka is not registered. 3. The AO also noticed that the registration value of the property is lower than the market value and accordingly made an addition under section 50C of the Act to the tune of Rs. 6,80,11,020/-. Aggrieved assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee made similar submissions before the CIT(A). The assessee also submitted the copy of the retirement / new partnership deed, factory gala a/c, copies of cap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peal in case of appellant firm are allowed and the addition made of Rs. 6,80,11,020/- is deleted in hands of appellant." 4. The ld. DR submitted that the sale-deed which is the primary document is executed by the assessee and in the said document the assessee has been named as the owner of the properties. The ld. DR further submitted that if the contention that it is Shri Vinod Kumar B Goenka is the actual owner of the property is to be accepted then there is no evidence that Shri Vinod Kumar B Goenka has declared the capital gains in his return of income and has paid the tax on the same. The ld. DR also argued that the assessee is claiming that the property is transferred to Shri Vinod Kumar B Goenka by merely passing book entries and there is no evidence that the legal ownership has been transferred to Shri Vinod Kumar B Goenka. The ld. DR argued that the family settlement through which the assessee has claimed to have transferred the property is not registered and is a self-serving document which cannot be accepted. The ld. DR further argued that as per the provisions of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act a contract to be valid is to be registered. Accordingly, the l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oenka is the owner who has sold these properties and he is the one who has received the entire consideration. The AO did not accept the submissions and made additions towards the difference between the stamp duty value and the actual consideration under section 50C of the Act. On further appeal the CIT(A) gave relief to the assessee after considering the various documentary evidences submitted by the assessee. It is the contention of the revenue that the document transferring the property to the retiring partner is not registered and the book entry transferring the impugned properties to the capital account of the retiring partner does not legally transfer the ownership of the properties. In this regard we notice that Shri Vinod Kumar B Goenka retired during the financial year relevant to AY 2004-05 and the document settling the properties in his favour was executed (though not registered) during the said AY and the entries in the books were also passed. We further notice that during assessment for AY 2004-05 the AO has examined the relevant details in this regard and has completed the assessment without recording any adverse findings with regard to the impugned transaction. Accord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....merits before giving relief to the assessee. 7. In result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30-09-2025. ============= Document 1 NOW THIS MEMORANDUM RECORDS AS UNDER : 1. In consideration of the family settlement arrived at by and between the parties Hereto : (a) The Residential house called B-104, New Miramar Co-op Housing Society 3, Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai -400 036 and the membership and the shares of the New Miramar Co-operative Housing Society have been allotted and allocated to the Said Party no One namely Shri Vinod Goenka alongwith his wife Smt Asha Goenka & his family unit. ( (b) The Office premises namely Gala No. 8, Bldg No.3, J. V. Patel Compound, Caroll Road, Elephinstone (w), Mumbai -400 013 have been allotted and allocated to the said party no. One namely Shri Viond Goenka alongwith NOTARY A. THANGAVELU his wife Smt Asha Goenka and his family unit. LNADU (c) Party of the Second to Eighth Part (including their fahrny membersimmer relinquished all rights, title, claim and Interest in the peopleRoad, No.G.O. M.a. COIMBATORE DIFT IT allocated to the party of the First Part. OF TAN (d)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....OF 1176 SQ. FT. CARPET AREA ON GROUND FLOOR IN BUILDING NO. 3 Document 4 WHEREAS. Mrs. Asha Devi Goenka and Mr. Vinod Kumar Goenka. on account of their pre-occupation with their own business. did not want to continue in the said partnership and accordingly have retired from the said partnership firm on mutual understanding with effect from the 25th January, 2003: WHEREAS after the demise of the said Shri Purushotham Goenka and the retirement of Smt. Savitri Devi Goenka. Smt. Asha Devi Goenka and Mr. Vinod Kumar Goenka, as referred to above, the parties of the first to seventh parts hereto. carried on the said firm as a going concern until 3rd April, 2003 as oral partnership on the terms and conditions mutually agreed to by all of them; Document 5 resultant profit or loss shall be shared amongst the partners as under: 1. SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR GOENKA, Son of Late Shri Babulal Goenka, representing as Karta of his Hindu Undivided Family 14% 2. SHRI SHIV KUMAR GOENKA, Son of Late Shri Babulal Goenka - 14% 3. SMT. UMA GOENKA, Wife of Shri Santosh Kumar Goenka 1 14%% 4. SMT. ANITA GOENKA, Wife of Shri Pramod Kumar Goenka 14% 5. SHRI CHANDRA PRAKASH GOENK....