IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, AM ITA No. 28/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20)

Teckmen Systems ITO Ward 27(3)(1)

C/o. G. P. Mehta & Co. CAS, 807, Room No. 422, Tower – 6, Vashi Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Railway Station, Commercial Vs.

Mumbai – 400021. Complex, Vashi, New Bombay –

400 703.

PAN/GIR No. AAAFT3969K (Appellant) : (Respondent Assessee by : Shri G. P. Mehta, CA Respondent by : Shri Ajit Pal Singh, SR. DR.

Date of Hearing : 17.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025

O R D E R

Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:

This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), ADDL/JCIT(A)-3, Bengaluru (‘ld. CIT(A)’ for short), passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2019-20.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. The orders passed by the learned lower authorities are bad in law and bad in facts.

2. Intimation issued u/s 143 (1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, by making an adjustment to the returned income at Rs.37,19,500/- in the context of Sec. 50C of the I.T. Act, 1961, is beyond the scope and ambit of Sec. 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Consequently, impugned adjustment to returned income is void ab-initio.

3. Learned lower authorities have grossly erred in making /upholding impugned adjustment of Rs.37,19,500/- by recourse to Section 50C of the I. T. Act, 1961, even though the property transferred by the appellant was a leasehold property and Sec. 50C of the I.T.

Act, 1961, has no application in case of transfer of leasehold property.

4. Learned lower authorities have grossly erred in not following the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court / Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and have further erred in making /upholding impugned addition of Rs. 37,19,500/- in transgression of judicial propriety.

5. Having regard to the facts of the case, provisions of law and settled legal position, impugned adjustment u/s 143 (1) of the 5 I.T. Act, 1961 at Rs.37,19,500/- is wholly uncalled for and unsustainable in law.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacturing of textile machinery and had filed its return of income dated 21.03.2020, declaring total income at 1,92,56,600/- and the same was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act and notice u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act dated 20.10.2020 was issued to the assessee, where the ld. AO/CPC had proposed the adjustment pertaining to the difference of Rs. 34,69,500/- being the different amount as per the ready reckoner value which is Rs. 3,17,19,500/- and the actual consideration of Rs. 2,82,50,000/- towards property (land and building) located in (Bhosari, MIDC, Pune) which leasehold rights were sold by the assessee during the year under consideration. The assessee contended that the leasehold rights in the property were sold for the consideration as per the fair market value, where the ready reckoner value does not indicate the fair market price. The CPC vide intimation dated 03.01.2021, u/s. 143(1) of the Act made an adjustment of Rs. 37,19,500/- towards the difference between the ready reckoner rate and the actual sale consideration, thereby determining total income at Rs. 2,29,76,100/-.

4. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority, who vide order dated 04.12.2024, upheld the addition made by the CPC/AO u/s. 50C of the Act by holding that the adjustment made by CPC towards the difference in the stamp value and actual sale consideration is within the jurisdiction of CPC.

5. The assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A). 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that the assessee vide registered deed of assignment of lease dated 07.05.2018 had sold the leasehold rights in the property for a