2016 (12) TMI 353 - HC - Income Tax

Addition of Long Term Capital Gain - applicability of provisions of section 50C to transfer of land and building, being a leasehold property - Held that - Tribunal followed its decision in Atul G. Puranik vs. ITO 2011 (5) TMI 576 - ITAT, Mumbai which held that Section 50C is not applicable while computing capital gains on transfer of leasehold rights in land and buildings. As 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. As held in Apex Court in UOI vs. Satish P. Shah (2000 (12) TMI 5 - SUPREME Court ) 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 Puranik (supra). - Decided against revenue

Issues Involved:
Challenge to order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding applicability of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to transfer of leasehold rights in land and buildings for Assessment Year 2007-08.

Analysis:

1. Question of Law Raised by Revenue:
The primary issue in this case was whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Long Term Capital Gain on the ground that provisions of Section 50C of the IT Act, 1961 were not applicable to the transfer of leasehold property. The Revenue raised this question for consideration by the High Court.

2. Tribunal's Decision and Precedents:
The Tribunal's impugned order dismissed the Revenue's appeal from the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal considered the applicability of Section 50C of the Act to the transfer of leasehold rights in land and buildings. It relied on its decision in Atul G. Puranik vs. ITO, where it was held that Section 50C does not apply to such transfers. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of the law in this regard.

3. Acceptance of Tribunal Decision by Revenue:
The Revenue did not appeal the Tribunal's decision in the Atul Puranik case. The Counsel for the Revenue acknowledged this fact, indicating acceptance of the decision. Legal principles from previous cases were cited, emphasizing that when the Revenue accepts a court or tribunal decision on an issue of law and does not appeal it, subsequent decisions following the same legal interpretation cannot be challenged.

4. No Substantial Question of Law:
Considering the acceptance of the previous decision by the Revenue and the absence of any distinguishing features in the present case, the High Court concluded that the question raised did not give rise to any substantial question of law. As a result, the High Court did not entertain the question raised by the Revenue.

5. Final Judgment:
In light of the above analysis, the High Court dismissed the appeals without any order as to costs. The decision was based on the interpretation of the law, the acceptance of previous decisions by the Revenue, and the lack of substantial legal issues raised by the Revenue in the present case.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the legal issues involved, the Tribunal's decision, the Revenue's acceptance of previous decisions, and the High Court's final judgment based on the legal principles and interpretations of the law.

← Previous Next →