Bombay H.C : The Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.80,58,000/- on the ground that provisions of section 50C of the IT Act, 1961 were not applicable to transfer of land and building, being a leasehold property

High Court Of Bombay

CIT, Central-II, Mumbai vs. Greenfield Hotels & Estates (P.) Ltd.

Section : 50C, 2(14), 45

Assessment Year 2007-08

M.S. Sanklecha And S.C. Gupte, JJ.

IT Appeal No. 735 Of 2014

October 24, 2016

ORDER

1. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) challenges the order dated 23 October 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“Tribunal”). The impugned order relates to Assessment Year 2007-08.

2. The Revenue urges the following question of law for our consideration :

“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.80,58,000/- on the ground that provisions of section 50C of the IT Act, 1961 were not applicable to transfer of land and building, being a leasehold property?”

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 Tribunal followed its decision in Atul G. Puranik v. ITO [2011] 132 ITD 499/11 taxmann.com 92 (Mum.) which held that Section 50C is not applicable while computing capital gains on transfer of 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 G. Puranik (supra). Thus, it could be inferred that it has been accepted. Our Court in DIT v. Credit Agricole Indosuez [2015] 377 ITR 102/[2016] 69 taxmann.com 285 (Bom.) (dealing with Tribunal order) and the Apex Court in UOI v. Satish P. Shah [2001] 249 ITR 221/117 Taxman 373 (SC) (dealing with High Court order) has laid down the salutary principle that where the Revenue has accepted the decision of the Court/Tribunal on an issue of law and not challenged it in appeal, then a subsequent decision following the earlier decision cannot be challenged. Further, it is not the Revenue’s case before us that there are any distinguishing features either in facts or in law in the present appeal from that arising in the case of Atul G. Puranik (supra).

5. In the above view, the question as framed by the Revenue does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained.

6. Appeals dismissed. No order as to costs.

[Citation : 389 ITR 68]

Malcare WordPress Security