Ita/182/2021 Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Smt. Sowmya Sathyan

Digitallysigned by BLAVANYALocation:HIGHCOURT OFKARNATAKA NC: 2024:KHC:39707-DBITA No. 182 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 182 OF 2021 BETWEEN: 1. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE. BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), MYSURU. WARD-1(4), MYSURU. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SANMATHI E I, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT SOWMYA SATHYAN, NO.433, VISWA MANAVA, DOUBLE ROAD, KUVEMPU NAGAR, MYSURU-570023, PAN- . …RESPONDENT (BY SRI TATA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 02/12/2020 PASSED IN ITA NO. 1224/BANG/2019, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-2015 PRAYING THIS HONBLE COURT TO: A) DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND / OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON'BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) Heard the learned counsel Sri.Sanmathi.E.I., for appellants/Revenue and learned counsel Sri.Tata Krishna for respondent/assessee. 2. The Revenue is in appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 02.12.2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘Appellate Authority’) in ITA.No.1224/Bang/2019 for the assessment year 2014-15. 3. This Court, admitted the appeal on 27.09.2021 to consider the following substantial question of law: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside orders of CIT(A) and assessing officer by holding that the Transferable Development Right (TDR) acquired - 3 - by the assessee was not in the nature of capital assets and there Section 50C is not applicable to facts of present case? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, is perverse in nature as Tribunal failed to appreciate that assessing authority right made addition in terms of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act in respect of acquisition of Transferable Development Right (TDR) whereas all the conditions for invoking said provision are rightly satisfied in case of assessee and when section 50C is attracted as assessee has paid an amount of Rs.1.14 crores in the purchase of TDR while the market value of the property is Rs.5.16 crores? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside addition make under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act which was rightly confirmed by first appellate authority?” 4. Learned counsel for the assessee submits that the tax effect in this appeal is less than Rs.2 Crores and therefore, the appeal should not be entertained at the instance of the revenue in view of the Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024 issued by the Central Board of Direct - 4 - Taxes. It is also submitted that the aforesaid Circular binds the revenue. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submits that he be granted liberty to revive the appeal in case the matter falls within the exceptions under the aforesaid Circular dated 17.09.2024 and Circular No.5/2024 dated 15.03.2024. 6. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned counsel for the revenue. However, the question of law is kept open to be adjudicated in an appropriate proceeding. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE MPK VT:VN