2011 (1) TMI 1115 - HC - Income Tax

Search and seizure - Block assessment - Held that - The sale of the capital assets like land, building and depreciable assets are assessable separately. However, this could be done by bifurcating the sale consideration in a realistic manner between the value attributable to land, builiding and fixed assets and the value fixed for the transfer of the business, which is essentially the transfer of dealership licence by the manufacturing Company. It is stated that Rs.5 lakhs was retained by the purchasers towards consideration for the transfer of licence from the assessee. However, it is not known whether this is spent by the assessee to get the licence or whether it is an estimated amount fixed between the parties. In any case, the eligibility for a petroleum dealership licence itself is availability of all the infrastructural facilities and equipments and experience. Therefore, it is for the Assessing Officer to examine, after giving opportunity to the assessee as to whether what exactly is the consideration i.e. attributable for transfer of the business rights as an intangibel asset including licence.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment on capital gains for the sale of a petroleum outlet as a going concern during the block period 01/04/1996 to 18/12/2002. Interpretation of relevant statutory provisions including Sections 50B, 2(42C), and 55(2) of the Income Tax Act. Application of the amendments introduced by Finance Acts in 1999 and 2002. Determination of tax liability on the sale of business assets and dealership license. Consideration of whether the sale of land, building, and business assets as a going concern can be assessed for capital gains.

Analysis:
The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the Tribunal's decision on the block assessment of the respondent assessee for the sale of a petroleum outlet as a going concern during the block period. The assessment was challenged based on the applicability of amendments introduced by Finance Acts in 1999 and 2002. The Tribunal and CIT (Appeals) canceled the assessment on capital gains, citing that the transaction was a sale of business before the amendment in Section 55(2) of the Act. The Revenue argued that the consideration for the sale of the business assets should be assessed for capital gains.

The Court analyzed the relevant statutory provisions systematically, highlighting Sections 50B, 2(42C), and 55(2) introduced by Finance Acts. It was noted that the transaction in question qualified as a slump sale falling under Section 2(42C) assessable under Section 50B. The Court emphasized that the sale of business assets as a going concern could attract tax on capital gains. The consideration for the transfer of the dealership license was distinguished from the sale of land, building, and other assets.

The Court referenced precedents and legal interpretations to determine the tax liability on the sale of business assets. It was established that capital assets, including business assets, are assessable to tax. The value of land, building, and depreciable assets was to be separately estimated and assessed for capital gains. The Court clarified that the value of the license for the sale of the business could not be assessed under Section 55(2) as it was introduced after the sale took place.

In conclusion, the Court held that the orders of the Tribunal and CIT (Appeals) were not sustainable as they did not consider the relevant provisions of the statute. The Court directed the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a realistic bifurcation of the sale consideration between the value of land, building, and depreciable assets and the value attributed to the transfer of the business rights, including the dealership license. The assessment on the value of land, building, and depreciable assets was to be reconsidered based on the Court's findings.