2021 (1) TMI 1284 - AT - Income Tax

Short term capital gains on slump sale - computation of net worth - DR submitted net worth of the asset has to be computed u/s.50B of the Act and therefore the AO has rightly reduced the liability from the value of the assets as on the date of sale to arrive at the net worth of the asset - HELD THAT - Once AO has accepted that payment of part consideration directly to the bank is the application of its sale proceeds by the assessee, then it is to be considered that the liability has been discharged by the assessee and is no longer the liability of the purchaser. Hence, the net worth of the assets does not include the liability of Rs.21.50 Lakhs, (as it is discharged by the assessee). There is no evidence brought on record by the department that the buyer has paid the assessee any amount more than Rs.51.50 Crores. The buyer has received the assets without any liability and therefore the net worth of the asset is Rs.55,14,38,969/-. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the net worth of the asset has to be further reduced by the liability because the liability has already been discharged by the assessee only. Appeal of assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Computation of Short Term Capital Gain on slump sale
2. Inclusion of bank liability in net worth for capital gains calculation
3. Validity of Form 3CEA certifying net worth
4. Levying of excess interest under sections 234C, 234B, and 234D

Issue 1: Computation of Short Term Capital Gain on slump sale
The assessee, engaged in media and entertainment, filed its income return for AY 2015-16, admitting Short Term Capital Loss on slump sale of Luxe Cinemas. The AO disputed the computation, considering the bank liability of Rs.21.50 Crores as part of net worth, resulting in Short Term Capital Gain. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision. The assessee contended that the liability was discharged by the buyer directly to the bank and not part of the consideration received, thus not affecting net worth. The Tribunal agreed, allowing the appeal.

Issue 2: Inclusion of bank liability in net worth for capital gains calculation
The AO reduced the net worth by the bank liability, leading to Short Term Capital Gain assessment. The assessee argued that the liability was not part of consideration received, as per the slump sale deed. The Tribunal held that once the buyer paid the bank directly, the liability was discharged by the assessee and no longer part of net worth, resulting in no further reduction.

Issue 3: Validity of Form 3CEA certifying net worth
The assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to set aside Form 3CEA certifying net worth. However, the Tribunal did not delve into this issue in its judgment.

Issue 4: Levying of excess interest under sections 234C, 234B, and 234D
The assessee contested the excess interest levied under sections 234C, 234B, and 234D. The Tribunal did not provide detailed analysis on this issue in the judgment.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee's contentions regarding the computation of Short Term Capital Gain on slump sale and the exclusion of bank liability from net worth calculation. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering the actual application of sale proceeds and the discharge of liabilities in determining net worth for capital gains assessment.