TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 31
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ced his objection to the submissions of the assessee. Upon consideration, we are satisfied that there existed sufficient cause for the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 280 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and the appeal is taken for adjudication. 3. The brief facts of the case have been duly set out in the impugned appellate order, which are identical to the submissions advanced by the Ld. AR. The same are reproduced hereunder as narrated in the impugned appellate order. "2.1. The appellant has filed his return of income for the AY 2018-19 declaring a total income of Rs. 3,06,810/- The case was selected for Compulsory scrutiny to verify Transaction in Immovable Property" and notice u/s. 143(2) was issued on 27.09.2020. Notices u/s. 142(1) A were issued to the appellant by the AO during the course of assessment proceeding for rights of a Room/Tenement being Room No.214, Second Floor, Siddhi Sadan Building, Fithwala Road, Elphinstone Road (West), Mumbai for a consideration of Rs. 32,50,000/- in a building which is constructed leasehold land which is owned by MHADA and the seller has acquired the rights vide allotment letter dated 06.06.2017 issued by MHADA in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of CIT vs M/s Greenfield Hotels & Estates Pvt Ltd., ITA 735 of 2014 date of order 24/10/2016. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced as below:- "3. The impugned order of the Tribunal has dismissed the Revenue's appeal from the order dated 15 June 2012 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The issue before the Tribunal was whether Section 50C of the Act would be applicable to transfer of leasehold rights in land and buildings. The impugned order of the vs. ITO (ITA Tribunal followed its decision in Atul G. Puranik vs. No.3051/Mum/2010) decided on 13 May 2011 which held that Section gains on transfer of 50C is not applicable while computing capital gains leasehold rights in land and buildings. 4. Mr. Kotangale, learned Counsel for the Revenue, states that the Revenue has not preferred any appeal against the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Atul Puranik (supra). Thus, it could be inferred that it has been accepted. Our Court in DIT vs. Credit Agricole Indosuez 377 ITR 102 (dealing with Tribunal order) and the Apex Court in UOI vs. Satish P. Shah 249 ITR 221 (dealing with High Court order) has laid down the salutary principle that where the Re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tal asset, the deeming provision u/s. 50 would apply and it would be treated as capital gain on the sale of short-term capital asset and hence no benefit u/s. 54E could be allowed. When the matter came up before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, it was noticed that sub-sections (1) and (2) of sec. 50 contained a deeming provision and such fiction was restricted only to the mode of computation of capital gain contained in sections 48 and 49 and hence it did not apply to other provisions. The assessee was held to be eligible for exemption u/s. 54E in respect of capital gain arising out of the capital asset on which depreciation was allowed. 11.4 In view of the aforenoted judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and that of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, it is clear that a deeming provision can be applied only in respect of the situation specifically given and hence cannot go beyond the explicit mandate of the section. Turning to sec. 50C, it is seen that the deeming fiction of substituting adopted or assessed or assessable value by the stamp valuation authority as full value of consideration is applicable only in respect of "land or building or both. If ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... provisions of sec.50C cannot be invoked. We, therefore, hold that the full value of consideration in the instant case be taken as Rs. 2.50 crores." 6. The Ld. AR further contended that the assessee had purchased rights in a room/tenement in a leasehold building constructed by MHADA, and such rights were acquired from the seller, who had originally been allotted the same by MHADA. In the alternative, the Ld. AR submitted that the addition was made on account of the difference between the stamp duty value and the agreed consideration. The Ld. AR contended that difference of the value of the property was not referred by the Ld. AO to the DVO. The Ld. AR had specifically requested that the property be referred to the DVO for valuation if the earlier ground is not survived. Finally, it was prayed that the addition made by the Ld. AO be deleted. 7. The Ld. DR argued and contended that the assessee had purchased the said property, from previous allotte. So, in any case, the assessee's purchase is liable to be taxed u/sec. 56(2)(x) of the Act. He further argued that the transfer of immovable property is purely comes under the purview of section 56(2)(x). He argued that the imm....