Itta/63/2024 Of The Prl Commissioner Of Income Tax, -2 v. Smt. Neela Reddy Moramreddy

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAULANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 63 OF 2024 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal filed under Section 260A of the lncome Tax Act,1961 against the Order dated 19.10.2023 passed in ITA No. 602lHydl2o20fot IheAssessment Year 2014-15 on the file of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal,Hyderabad'A'Bench, Hyderabad against the Order dated 21.09.2020 [passed ][in]Appeal No. 1052812019-2O/A2IC|T(A)-6 on the file of the Commissioner of lncomeTax (Appeals) - 6, 6A, l.T. Towers, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad [preferred ]against theOrder dated 30J22019 passed in PAN No. AFAPIM7614R on the file of the [lncome]Tax Department, lncome Tax Officer, Range-l4, 6th Floor, lT Towers, [Guards,]Hyderabad. Between: The Prl. Commissioner of lncome Tax-2, 6th Floor, Signature [Towers,]Kondapur Opposite Botanical Gardens, Hyderabad 500084 ...Appellant AND Smt. Neela Reddy Moramreddy, Plot No. 43, Meenakshi Bambooss, [Sy.No.33]and 38, Opp: Ramkee Towers, Gachibowli, Hyderabad-500032 [(PAN ][No.] ) ..Respondents Counsel for the Appellant : Sri P. Murali Krishna Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Bommareddy Gangadhara Reddy The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAULANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVA.RAPURAJESHWAR RAO ITTANo.63OF.2o24 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Justice Sujoy paut) This appeal filed under Section 260A of ttLe [n<:ome Tax Act,1961 (for short, the Act) takes exception to the order dated19.1O.2023 passed by the Income Tax Appell;rte Tribunal,Hyderabad ?' Bench (for short, the Tribunal) f,tr the assessmentyear 2014-L5. 2. Sri P. Murali Krishna, learned counsel tor t he appellant,proposed one substantial question which is nrentirtned in paraNo.6.1 of Grounds of Appeal. As per Sri p Murali Krishna,whether in the facts and circumstances of the czise and in law, thelearned Tribunal was correct in holding the.t amendment toSection sOC of the Income Tax Act, De l, is applicableretrospectively? 3. To elaborate, learned counsel for the appeJlant submits thata plain reading of prouiso to Section 50C(l) of the Act makes itclear that two dates are crucial. The hrst da.te is the date ofagreement hxing the amount of consideration emcl the second isthe date of registration. If both the dates are di.ifererrt, the stampI valuation on the date oi.agreement must be taken for the purposeof computing full valueof consideration for such transfer- Heplaced reliance on the tinding in para 2l of the impugned order ofthe Tribunal to submit that Section SOC(I) of the Act has not beenconsidered in the light of prouisoaforesaid. 4 ' sri Bommareddy Gangadhara Bommareddy Gangadhara Reddy, Iearned counsel for therespondent/assessee, supported the impugned order and submitsthat para 2O of the impugned order is consideration of alternativesubmission. respondent/assessee, supported the impugned order and submitsthat para 2O of the impugned order is consideration of alternativesubmission. He placed reliance on other paras of the impugnedorder.order. 5The relevarrt portion of Section 50C(1) of the Act and prouisoto it read as under:to it read as under: "sOC. (1) Where thtconsideration result of the transfe,: received or accruing as aassessed ta na o.' u ui]airi' or u""."JrT,?. l';-'^ll^"-l ,i,,,I."^"'-11.1 -assessee [of ]rhe [a ][ca ]value [p ][i ][ta ]l r"";i;-;;;Government (hereaft [-" ]['' vr ]'1tty [aulnorlty ]of a "a.ptJ."IStatet r,.-,, ", [r,,,,i;;- ][;;'r';# ][* ][:;';?'il: ]X,,.,::":.TI:1.,.,. " [t, ][i'i]dury in respecl .i :,;;; ;j:-:,.:'j".".t [or ][pavment ]of srampassessed or assessa bre-"r-.rj l' r.i'.nl,;rH:::" "or accruing be deemed as to a result be rhe o[ l-ull such vatue transfer."r ,;;,.;;"f.i..rion :S:,ffi. received ;:or 5The relevarrt portion of Section 50C(1) of the Act and prouisoto it read as under:to it read as under: "sOC. (1) Where thtconsideration result of the transfe,: received or accruing as aassessed ta na o.' u ui]airi' or u""."JrT,?. l';-'^ll^"-l ,i,,,I."^"'-11.1 -assessee [of ]rhe [a ][ca ]value [p ][i ][ta ]l r"";i;-;;;Government (hereaft [-" ]['' vr ]'1tty [aulnorlty ]of a "a.ptJ."IStatet r,.-,, ", [r,,,,i;;- ][;;'r';# ][* ][:;';?'il: ]X,,.,::":.TI:1.,.,. " [t, ][i'i]dury in respecl .i :,;;; ;j:-:,.:'j".".t [or ][pavment ]of srampassessed or assessa bre-"r-.rj l' r.i'.nl,;rH:::" "or accruing be deemed as to a result be rhe o[ l-ull such vatue transfer."r ,;;,.;;"f.i..rion :S:,ffi. received ;:or provided that whamount of considerat,ti t^ht, d?" of the agreement lixing the.;:: m::* ;i [jri""*jtl:{$ ]F ?ixlr::,r$ it:transfer:, ;:::::::".1":#"""r"X*..X".?,ll.,iL .g lull value o[ consideration [jl.r:,1trJ"iL"H:]for such 6. A plain [reading ][of ][para ][20 of ][the impugned ][ordet' shows ][that]the finding [mentioned ][therein ][is ][one ][of ][the ][reasons ][to ][disapprove]the stand [of ][the Revenue' ][Pertinently' ][in ][parasr ][30 to 34 of ][the]impugned [order, ][the ][learned ][Tribunal ][has ][considere<l ][the ][factual]aspects [of ][the ][matter' ][The ][Tribunal ][has ][meticulouslv ][reproduced]the dates [and ][events ][in ][tabular ][form' ][Thereafter' ][ea':h ][event ][and]tax liability [arising thereto was ][considered ][in ][subsequent ][paras']In para [36 ][of ][the ][impugned' ][order' the ][ultimate ][findin11s ][are ][given']7 . In this [appeat, ][the ][appellant ][has ][no.i ][questioned ][the]correctness/ [genuineness ][of ][MoUs/Agreement ][and ][GPAs executed]by the [respondent ][in ][the ][years ][2OlO ]' [2Ol1' ][2012' ][2Ol3 ][and ][2Ol4]which were [considered ][in ][the ][impugned ][ord'3r ][bl/ ][the ][learned]Tribunal. [The singular question raised by ][the ][lleverLue ][is ][that ][the]stamp duty [va-lue ][of ][the ][property ][as ][on ][the ][datr: ][of ][agreement and]final receipt [dated ][28'03'2014 must ][be ][considered ftrr ][the ][purpose]of computation [of ][long ][term ][capital ][gains ][in ][lieu ][o{ consideration]shown in [the agreement' ][Pertinently' ][the ][Asst:ssing Offrcer ][made]the entire [assessment based ][on ][the ][agreemenl' ][datt:d ][28'03'2014']which is unregistered' [Thus' ][the ][agreement ][and ][final ][receipt]dated 28.O3.2014 [must ][be read ][conjointly ][witl:I ][Mous ][executed ][in]the years [2010 ][and ][2011 ][for the ][simple reason ][that ][final] II agreement dated 28.03.2014 was a consequence and was enteredinto in furtherance of MoUs. 8No amount of argument was advanced to assail the findingsof fact given in the aforesaid paras. Thus, there exists nosubstantial question which requires adjudication. 9. The admission is declined and the appeal is dismissed.There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaleous applications, ifany pending shall stand closed. Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAOJOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, '1. The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad 'ABench,Hyderabad.Hyderabad.2. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) - 6, 6,4, l.TTowers,A.C. Guards, HyderabadThe lncome Tix Department, lncome Tax Officer,Range-14, 6thFloor, lT Towers, AC Guards, Hyderabad.A.C. Guards, HyderabadThe lncome Tix Department, lncome Tax Officer,Range-14, 6thFloor, lT Towers, AC Guards, Hyderabad. 4One CC to Sri P. Murali Krishna, Advocate AOne CC to Sri Bommareddy Gangadhara Reddy, Advocate 6Two CD CopiesAOne CC to Sri Bommareddy Gangadhara Reddy, Advocate 6Two CD CopiesNjb/gh I HIGH COURT DATED:0410912024 JUDGMENTlTTA.No.63 [of ][2024] DISMISSING WITHOUT @t"f'' j::-it{E [5t]Ars1a,:114t|81I:nFiA+l