Tirupur - 641 603 v. The Income Tax Officer,Ward - I(4), Tirupur

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVANANDTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD M/s. Prime Urban Development India Limited,110, Avinashi Road,Gandhi Nagar Post, Tirupur - 641 603. ... Appellant/Respondent Versus The Income Tax Officer,Ward - I(4), Tirupur ... Respondent/Appellant Prayer: Appeal preferred under Section 260-A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal“B” Bench, Chennai, dated 14.12.2012 passed in I.T.A.No.1795(mds)/2012 against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) II, Coimbatore, dated 27.09.2012 passed inI.T.A.No.145/11-12 and against the order of the Income TaxOfficer, Ward I(4), Tirupur, dated 30.12.2011 passed in PANNo.AABCP9571D of Assessment Year 2009-10. JUDGMENT (Judgment of the court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.) This tax case appeal has been filed by the appellant /assessee, challenging the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal “B” Bench, Chennai, dated 14.12.2012 passed inI.T.A.No.1795/Mds/2012, relating to the assessment year 2009 -10. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.By order dated 25.02.2013, this court admitted theaforesaid tax case appeal on the following substantial questionsof law: "1.Whetherinthefactsandcircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal is right in holdingthat there was a transfer of FSI anddevelopment rights being Rs.30.50 croreswithin the meaning of clause (47) ofSection 2 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether in the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Tribunal isright in holding that the doctrine of partperformance as envisaged in Section 2(47)(v) could be attributed to the transactionentered into, when the appellant wasconstrained by law from handing overpossession to the buyer?3.Whetherinthefactsandcircumstances of the case, the Tribunal isright in law and fact in not addressingall the grounds in the order of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) moreparticularly in the grounds raised in 5(a)and 5(b)?4.Whetherinthefactsandcircumstances of the case, the Tribunal isright in holding that the sale of FSI anddevelopment rights treated as business isto be changed as capital gains as thetransaction is a colourable device despitethe fact that there was no transfer ofland as envisaged by the Income Tax Act,1961 and the Transfer of Property Act,1882.5. Whether having regard to thepowersandjurisdictionofthecommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) underSection 251 of the Income Tax Act, 1961,it is open to him to treat the sum ofRs.30.50 crores as capital gains when itwas treated by the appellant and theAssessing Officer as income from business?6.Whetheronthefactsandcircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was correct in law insustaining the addition of interest underSection 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961since a charge was not created by the Assessing Officer as part of the order?"3.When the matter was taken up for consideration, thelearned counsel appearing for both sides submitted thatsubsequent to the order passed by the Tribunal, which isimpugned herein, a miscellaneous petition in M.P.No.108/Mds/2013was filed by the assessee stating that the Tribunal hasomitted to consider ground Nos.3(i) & (j) relating to theaddition of Rs.18 crores; after hearing the parties, theTribunal by order dated 17.10.2014 recalled its order dated14.12.2012 only to the limited extent of disposing the groundNo.3(i) and dismissing the ground No.3(j) raised by theassessee; and aggrieved against the said order dated 17.10.2014,the assessee preferred an appeal in TCA.No.117 of 2015 beforethis Court. Thus, according to the learned counsel, nothingsurvives for adjudication herein. 4.In view of the above, this tax case appeal is dismissedas having become infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connectedmiscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/-Deputy Registrar(CS) //True copy// Sub Assistant Registrar dhk To 1.The Income Tax Officer, Ward - I(4), Tirupur 2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B Bench, Chennai 3.The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) -II, Coimbatore. +1cc to Mr.M.Swaminathan, Advocate SR.No.20841 +1cc to Mr.G.Baskar, Advocate SR.No.21143 NR(CO)GMY(27/04/2022)