Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD – BENCH ‘C’
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI RIFAUR RAHMAN
PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against order of the ld.CIT(A)-1, Vadodara dated 3.1.2017 passed for the Asstt.Year 2013-14. 2. Sole grievance of the Revenue is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.99,10,000/- which was added by the AO on protective basis.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company at the relevant time was engaged in the business of investment in real- 2
estate and renting of properties. It has filed its return of income electronically on 25.9.2013 declaring total income at Rs.1,18,66,20/-. On scrutiny of the accounts, it revealed to the AO that the assessee had sold a property during the accounting period for the Asstt.Year 2010-11 for a consideration of rs.4.11 crores. It has claimed cost of improvement of Rs.1.95 crores in F.Y.2009-10. The assessee has made various payments amounting to Rs.50 lakhs. The balance of Rs.1.45 crores has been shown as liability towards Rama reality i.e. contractor. This claim of the assessee was not allowed in the Asstt.Year 2010-11. Dispute travelled upto the Tribunal in ITA No.969 and 1071/Ahd/2014. Tribunal held that since the assessee has already offered this amount for taxation in the Asstt.Year 2013-14 on account of remission/cessation of liability, therefore, this addition of Rs.99.10 lakhs is not sustainable. The finding of the Tribunal in para 18 reads as under:
“18. So far as the balance of Rs. 99.10 lacs is concerned, a perusal of the paper book shows that the assessee has offered the same as remission/cessation of liability in A.Y. 2013-14 and has paid the taxes accordingly. Since, the assessee has offered this amount as its income in subsequent year if the disallowance is sustained during the year under consideration, it would amount to double taxation of the same amount. Therefore, in our understanding of the fact, this disallowance cannot be sustained. We, accordingly, modify the findings of the Id. CIT(A) and direct the A.O. to confirm the addition of Rs. 45.90 lacs and delete the addition of Rs. 99.10 lacs.”
The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset admitted that addition from Asstt.Year 2010-11 of Rs.99.10 lakhs was deleted on account of the stand of the assessee that it offered in 3
2013-14. Now this amount is taxable in this assessment year, and therefore, order of the CIT(A) deserves to be set aside. Thus, order of the ld.CIT(A) is set aside. At this stage, we deem it appropriate to note the finding of the AO on this issue which is available in sub-para 4 of the assessment order. It reads as under: “A.Y. 2013-14: As the matter is pending with the Hon’ble ITAT-Ahmedabad for adjudication, no change is being made in the capital gain shown by the assessee for the assessment year under consideration (i.e. A.Y.2013-14). However, as and when the matter is decided by the Hon’ble ITAT and is accepted by the department as well as the assessee, the issue in question will be disposed accordingly.”
A perusal of the above would indicate that the ld.AO kept this issue open in order to await the decision of ITAT for the Asstt.Year 2010-11. Thus, the issue is required to be adjudicated now. We set aside it to the file of AO for fresh adjudication.
In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the Court on 15th July, 2019. (RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER
Ahmedabad; Dated 15/07/2019
आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :