9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 1115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se. learned commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) grossly erred in upholding the finding of Ld. AO that 'PLOT' actually was an Investment and not stock in Trade as claimed, merely by observing that evidence in support of business of sale/purchase of land are inadequate even after examining the Audited balance sheets/Resolution etc relating evidences on the record and wrongly stated that B/S of earlier years needs verification by AO as they were never produced before him while AO himself never stated so. Hence, finding of lower authorities is perverse and application of section 50C with consequent addition of Rs. 39,04,000/- is inherently illegal. iii. Because, learned commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further erred in observing t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and circumstances on the record hence it is hereby prayed that the total addition may kindly be quashed Without prejudice to the above but only and only in alternative, if it is not possible to allow the above prayer than it is also preyed that Ld. AO may kindly be directed to compute long term capital gain as per law. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. For the assessment year 2009-10, the appellant has filed the return of income on 03.12.2009 declaring Nil income and the case was selected for scrutiny assessment under CASS and finally the assessment order came to be passed vide order dated 30.12.2011 under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iness is to deal in immovable properties. Therefore, he submitted that where the property sold is forming part of stock in trade, the provisions of Section 50C of the Act are not applicable. In support of this proposition, he relied upon the following judgments: i. CIT Vs. Kan Construction and Colonizers (P) Ltd., (2012) 20 Taxmann.com 381 (All.) ii. ACIT Vs. Nipun Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 3867/2011, order dated 28.06.2013 iii. CIT Vs. Thiruvengadam Inv. P. Ltd. , (2010) 320 ITR 345 (Mad. ) iv. CIT Vs. Mukesh Kishore Barot Co-owners, (2013) 33 Taxmann.com 87 (Guj.) v. K.P. Vergese, 131 ITR 297 (SC). 4. On the other hand, learned DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that it is a solitary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no. 43 of the paper book, does not come to the rescue of the appellant company as clauses 45 and 46 do not enable the appellant company to indulge in dealing with properties. We also note that only two properties were held by the appellant company and out of which one is sold during the previous year relevant to the assessment year. The main objects for which the company was incorporated is to carry on business of manufactures, processors, importers, exporters and dealers in all kinds of ferrous and non-ferrous material meant for any industrial or non-industrial use whatsoever and to carry on the business of castings, fabrication, cold and hot rolling, re-rolling, slitting, adgemilting, sheeting, stamping, pressing, extruding, forging, dra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
