9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 931X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a lease for 99 years with respect to the land and the vendee has paid consideration of ₹ 17 Crores for cancellation of the said lease. In the present case, the vendor did not have an unencumbered right over the land and M/s ESS ESS Metals and Electricals admittedly had a perpetual leasehold right over the land, which right was also extinguished under the Sale Deed. The bifurcation of the sale consideration was not challenged by the Assessing Officer. In fact, the Assessing Officer took ₹ 18 crores received by the respondent as the Sale Consideration. This was clearly erroneous as the Sale Consideration was ₹ 35 crores, however, was bifurcated between two right-holders over the land. The transaction being collusive was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E NAVIN CHAWLA Appellant Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms. Adeeba Mujahid, Jr. Standing Counsel. Respondent Through: Mr. Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Madhur Aggarwal, Adv. NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral) 1. This appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 16.07.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench G , New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ITAT ) in ITA No.3518/DEL/2016 dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant herein. 2. The questions of law proposed in the appeal are as under:- 3.1. WHETHER in the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble ITAT erred in holding that it is for the parties to settle the sale consideration for transfer of respective share ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alance of 5077 sq. meters. 6. By a Sale Deed dated 10.02.2012, the respondent alongwith M/s ESS ESS Metals and Electricals transferred the said land in favour of M/s HH Buildtech Private Ltd. for a total consideration of ₹ 35 Crores (Rupees Thirty Five Crores) out of which ₹ 18 Crores (Rupees Eighteen Crores) was received by the respondent, while the balance of ₹ 17 Crores (Rupees Seventeen Crores) was received by M/s ESS ESS Metals and Electricals. 7. The Assessing Officer, by the Assessment Order dated 31.03.2015, held that the respondent had the sole ownership right over the plot of land and therefore, should have received the minimum amount of sale consideration at the Circle Rate of ₹ 27,60,03,387/- (Rupee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the same to the assessee under three sale deeds on different dates. The sale consideration paid by the assessee is also not in dispute. As on the date of sale of the said land in favour of M/s HH Buildtech Private Limited, according to the learned Assessing Officer, the circle rate was ₹ 27.60 crores whereas the sale consideration according to the sale deed was ₹ 35 crores, which is much higher than the circle rate. 9. Sale deed dated 10.02.2012 of this land in favour of M/s HH Buildtech Private Limited clearly shows that both the assessee and M/s ESS ESS Metals and Electricals were the vendors of their respective rights in the land and the recitals of the sale deed are clear in stating that out of the sale considerati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he exclusion of M/s ESS ESS Metals and Electricals or that the consideration paid to M/s ESS ESS Metals and Electricals was excessive. It is open for the Revenue to verify whether the sale consideration said to have been received by M/s ESS ESS Metals and Electricals was offered to tax or not in the scrutiny of the return of income of M/s ESS ESS Metals and Electricals. It is not open for the Revenue to contend that to the exclusion of M/s ESS ESS Metals and Electricals, assessee alone must receive the entire sale consideration ignoring the leasehold rights held by M/s ESS ESS Metals and Electricals for 99 years in respect of the very same property which was the subject matter of the sale. 12. In this perspective of the matter, we are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndee has paid consideration of ₹ 17 Crores for cancellation of the said lease. In the present case, the vendor did not have an unencumbered right over the land and M/s ESS ESS Metals and Electricals admittedly had a perpetual leasehold right over the land, which right was also extinguished under the Sale Deed. 13. The bifurcation of the sale consideration was not challenged by the Assessing Officer. In fact, the Assessing Officer took ₹ 18 crores received by the respondent as the Sale Consideration. This was clearly erroneous as the Sale Consideration was ₹ 35 crores, however, was bifurcated between two right-holders over the land. The transaction being collusive was not the case of the Assessing Officer. 14. Keeping ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
