9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 450X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ital loss, it was made off market transaction and not routed through the BSE - Held that: the additional evidences filed by the assessee are relevant to the issue in respect of the Short Term Capital loss of shares of M/s. Suryadeep Salt Pvt. Ltd. The assessee could not produce the same before the lower authorities. In the interest of justice matter remitted back. - 7024 (MUM.) OF 2007 - - - Dated:- 25-6-2010 - A.L. Gehlot, R.S. Padvekar, JJ. Sanjiv M. Shah for the Appellant. Kishan Vyas for the Respondent. ORDER R.S. Padvekar, Judicial Member. In this appeal, the assessee has challenged the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A)-XXV, Mumbai for the assessment year 2004-05 dated17-9-2007. 2. The assessee has taken the following effective grounds in its appeal : ( i ) Under the facts and the circumstances of the case of your appellant the ld. Assessing Officer has erred in invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and taking the sale price of the residential property at Rs. 1,03,32,000 instead of agreed price of Rs. 65 lakhs without referring the value of the Valuation Cell of the Income-tax Department which again confirmed, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jects for introduction of section 50C is concerned. It is further argued that nowhere the Assessing Officer has recorded the finding that the assessee received more consideration than what has been shown in the agreement. The ld. counsel also made reference to the written submissions made before the ld. CIT(A). He also relied on the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Punjab Haryana in the case of CIT v. Chandni Bhuchar [2010] 34 DTR 137. 5.1 Per contra , the ld. DR argues that section 50C and the erstwhile section 52(2) are two different legislative provisions; having the different objects. It is argued that section 50C is in the nature of the deeming provision and as per language used in said section, in unambiguous terms it is provided that if the consideration declared by the assessee as received or accruing on the transfer of any land or building is less than the value adopted or assessed by the Stamp Duty Authority for the purpose of Stamp valuation; then the value adopted by the Stamp Authority shall be deemed to be full value of the consideration for the purpose of section 48 of the Act. He further argues that so far as the omitted section 52(2) is concerned, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ult of the transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is less than the value adopted or assessed by any authority of a State Government (hereafter in this section referred to as the stamp valuation authority ) for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer, the value so adopted or assessed shall, for the purposes of section 48, be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer. (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), where - ( a ) the assessee claims before any Assessing Officer that the value adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authority under sub-section (1) exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer; ( b ) the value so adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authority under sub-section (1) has not been disputed in any appeal or revision or no reference has been made before any other authority, court or the High Court, the Assessing Officer may refer the valuation of the capital asset to a Valuation Officer and where any such reference is made, the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adu [2002] 255 ITR 147: The rival pleas regarding rewriting of statute and casus omissus need careful consideration. It is well-settled principle in law that the court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous. A statute is an edit of the Legislature. The language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of Legislature intent. The first and primary rule of construction is that the intention of the Legislature must be found in the words used by the Legislature itself. The question is not what may be supposed and has been intended but what has been said. Statutes should be construed not as theorems of Euclid . Judge Learned Hand said, but words must be construed, with some imagination of the purposes which lie behind them ( see Lenigh Valley Coal Co. v. Yensavage (218 FR 547). The view was reiterated in Union of India v. Filp Tiago de Gama of Vedem Vasco de Gama, AIR 1990 SC 981. In D.R Venkatachalam v. Deputy Transport Commissioner, AIR 1977 SC 842, it was observed that courts must avoid the danger of a priori determination of the meaning of a provision based on their own pre-conceived notions of ideological structu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
