For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on Income Tax
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our Income-Tax Library

Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT erred in confirming invocation of the provisions of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act 1961 since at best even if taxability under Section 47 arises it would be qua right in the said property and not qua the property itself and Section 50C has no application in case of transfer of right in a property

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 — Appeal — Appeal to appellate tribunal — After arguing the case for some time, learned counsel for the appellant wishes to withdraw the present appeal with liberty to file an application under Section 254(2) before the Tribunal.[2020] 53 ITCD 063 (MP)
Facts: Being aggrieved of the order of Tribunal, assessee went on appeal before High Court and raised the question of law that

*"A.*	*Whether the findings in the impugned order dated 20.06.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore is perverse, unjustified, unwarranted and liable to be set aside?*
B.	*Whether the property which stood transferred during AY 2008-09 can be again a subject matter of taxation for AY 2010-11?*
C.	*Whether the department exceeded in its jurisdiction for assessing the appellant for the AY 2010-11 and levying tax on the transaction which already stood transferred in the AY 2008-09?*
D.	Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT erred in confirming invocation of the provisions of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act 1961 since at best even if taxability under Section 47 arises it would be qua right in the said property and not qua the property itself and Section 50C has no application in case of transfer of right in a property?
E.	Whether the Tribunal was justified in conforming the addition on account of long term gain amounting to Rs. 50,19,180/- in the hands assessee from the sale of property which is disputed and litigation of ownership is pending before the Civil Court?
F.	Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition on account of long term capital gain amounting to Rs. 50,19,080/- in the appellant's hand from sale of a residential house without considering the material fact that the appellant or any of his representatives never lawfully owned and /or possessed the subject residential house before the sale thereof?
G.	Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition on account of long-term capital gain amount to Rs. 50,19,080/- in the appellant's hand from sale of the subject property without considering the material fact that the appellant had not received any consideration from the sale of subject property during the previous year under consideration and further since, no lawful possession was handed over there could not have been any case of transfer?
H.	Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition on account of long-term capital gain amounting to Rs. 50,19,080/- in the appellant's hand from sale of the subject property by invoking provisions of Section 50 C of the Act without considering the material fact that the provisions of Section 50 C can be invoked for transfer of land or building only and not for transfer of any right in land or building.?"

Held, that after arguing the case for some time, learned counsel for the appellant wishes to withdraw the present appeal with liberty to file an application under Section 254(2) of the Act before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. However, the appellant is at liberty to take recourse to the remedy available, in accordance with law.

Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT erred in confirming invocation of the provisions of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act 1961 since at best even if taxability under Section 47 arises it would be qua right in the said property and not qua the property itself and Section 50C has no application in case of transfer of right in a property

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

*"A.*	*Whether the findings in the impugned order dated 20.06.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore is perverse, unjustified, unwarranted and liable to be set aside?*
B.	*Whether the property which stood transferred during AY 2008-09 can be again a subject matter of taxation for AY 2010-11?*
C.	*Whether the department exceeded in its jurisdiction for assessing the appellant for the AY 2010-11 and levying tax on the transaction which already stood transferred in the AY 2008-09?*
D.	Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT erred in confirming invocation of the provisions of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act 1961 since at best even if taxability under Section 47 arises it would be qua right in the said property and not qua the property itself and Section 50C has no application in case of transfer of right in a property?
E.	Whether the Tribunal was justified in conforming the addition on account of long term gain amounting to Rs. 50,19,180/- in the hands assessee from the sale of property which is disputed and litigation of ownership is pending before the Civil Court?
F.	Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition on account of long term capital gain amounting to Rs. 50,19,080/- in the appellant's hand from sale of a residential house without considering the material fact that the appellant or any of his representatives never lawfully owned and /or possessed the subject residential house before the sale thereof?
G.	Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition on account of long-term capital gain amount to Rs. 50,19,080/- in the appellant's hand from sale of the subject property without considering the material fact that the appellant had not received any consideration from the sale of subject property during the previous year under consideration and further since, no lawful possession was handed over there could not have been any case of transfer?
H.	Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition on account of long-term capital gain amounting to Rs. 50,19,080/- in the appellant's hand from sale of the subject property by invoking provisions of Section 50 C of the Act without considering the material fact that the provisions of Section 50 C can be invoked for transfer of land or building only and not for transfer of any right in land or building.?"