Sir Shadilal Enterprises Limited v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Taxcircle 23 (2), New Delhi

$~66 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ITA 29/2024 SIR SHADILAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED ..... Appellant Through:Mr. Inder Paul Bansal and Mr.Vivek Bansal, Advocates. versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCIRCLE 23 (2), NEW DELHI ..... Respondent Through:Mr. Puneet Rai, Sr. SC withMr. Ashvini Kumar, SC andMr. Rishabh Nangia, SC. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMARKAURAV O R D E R%10.01.2024 CM APPL. 1612/2024 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. ITA 29/2024 1.While considering the issue of capital gains and the liability thatcould have been placed upon the appellant in terms of Section 50B ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961, we find that the Assessing Authority hadobserved as under:- “2.3.1. Following points needs to be considered while arriving atsale consideration price of UNN Sugar Complex: a.As per Definitive Agreement for sale of M/ s UNN SugarComplex the consideration for the transfer is (a) Rs.75,50,00,000 /- ( Rupees Seventy Five Crores Fifty lacsComplex the consideration for the transfer is (a) Rs.75,50,00,000 /- ( Rupees Seventy Five Crores Fifty lacs only) and (b) the value of Net Current Assets on the transferdate as determined with Clause 6.3 of the agreement b. as per sub-ledger of Control GL: 5201 mentioned above,the consideration received for slump sale of M/s Unn SugarComplex, is Rs. 155,30,55,105.94 which includes value ofnet current assets.the consideration received for slump sale of M/s Unn SugarComplex, is Rs. 155,30,55,105.94 which includes value ofnet current assets. c.Page 2, 10 & e-stamp purchased for conveyance deed, allshow the consideration price for UNN Sugar Complex atRs. 75,50,00,000/-. Moreover, page-23 of conveyance deed(scanned at Page-16 of this order) clearly mentionsmodalities of payments of the purchase consideration,wherein it is mentioned that payments have been made byway of D.D./RTGS on various dates for aggregate lumpsum consideration of Rs. 75.50 Cr.show the consideration price for UNN Sugar Complex atRs. 75,50,00,000/-. Moreover, page-23 of conveyance deed(scanned at Page-16 of this order) clearly mentionsmodalities of payments of the purchase consideration,wherein it is mentioned that payments have been made byway of D.D./RTGS on various dates for aggregate lumpsum consideration of Rs. 75.50 Cr. d. Sub-Ledger Control GL: 5201 Sundary Creditors for01.01.2014 to 31.03.2015, shows all the transactionsundertaken by the assessee with M/ s Superior Food GrainsP. Ltd, the purchaser of sugar complex, during F.Y. 2014-15 relevant to A.Y 2015-16 Ledger entry dated 30.09.2014bearing no 90243 is reproduced hereunder for readyreference01.01.2014 to 31.03.2015, shows all the transactionsundertaken by the assessee with M/ s Superior Food GrainsP. Ltd, the purchaser of sugar complex, during F.Y. 2014-15 relevant to A.Y 2015-16 Ledger entry dated 30.09.2014bearing no 90243 is reproduced hereunder for readyreference “30/09/14 13/ 90243 HY AMT OF PROFIT OS SALE OFJINN SUGAR UNIT 491922400.94" The above entry shows that the assessee has itself computedthe profit on sale of UNN Sugar Unit at Rs. 49,19,22,401/-but the same has not been, factored in by it while computingcapital gain from sale of sugar unit.” 2.Our attention, however, has been drawn to page 326 of ourelectronic record and which would indicate a reversal of the entry ofRs. 49,19,22,400.94/- in the books of account of the assessee.According to learned counsel for the appellant, while this ground wasduly pressed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [“ITAT”], ithas failed to either notice or consider the same. It is in the aforesaidbackdrop that learned counsel makes a prayer for being accordedliberty to move the ITAT for the purposes of rectification. 3.In view of the aforesaid and while keeping all contentions of respective parties open, we dispose of the appeal at this stage withliberty as prayed for. YASHWANT VARMA, J. 2.Our attention, however, has been drawn to page 326 of ourelectronic record and which would indicate a reversal of the entry ofRs. 49,19,22,400.94/- in the books of account of the assessee.According to learned counsel for the appellant, while this ground wasduly pressed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [“ITAT”], ithas failed to either notice or consider the same. It is in the aforesaidbackdrop that learned counsel makes a prayer for being accordedliberty to move the ITAT for the purposes of rectification. 3.In view of the aforesaid and while keeping all contentions of respective parties open, we dispose of the appeal at this stage withliberty as prayed for. YASHWANT VARMA, J. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.JANUARY 10, 2024/ Neha/priya