GOLLA CHANDRA MOULI,CUTTACK vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 110/CTK/2019Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 December 2019AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not considered the additional grounds of appeal filed by the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee claimed that the CIT(A) failed to consider additional grounds of appeal and written submissions regarding the cost of construction borne by the developer.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred by not considering the additional grounds of appeal and written submissions filed by the assessee.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI L.P. SAHU, AM

Hearing: 26/11/2019Pronounced: 18/12/2019

Per L.P.Sahu, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A), Cuttack, dated 11.01.2019 for the assessment year 2013-2014 on the following grounds of appeal :-

1.

For that the order of the learned CIT (A) in so far is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant is bad and erroneous in law and against the facts and in the circumstances of the case.

2.

For that the learned CIT (A) should not have left out of Consideration the additional grounds of appeal and written submission of the appellant filed on 31/10/2018, in which it has been specifically claimed that the cost of improvement Rs.57,95,000/- in fact is the cost of construction borne by the Developer and the property was only hand over to the appellant on 18/01/2012 after completion of the project and subsequently sold on 01/02/2013, disclosing Short Term Capital Gain of Rs.32,72,699/-on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.

3.

For that the learned CIT (A) before confirming the action of the learned assessing officer should have borne in mind that the claim

2 of cost of improvement under the head Capital Gain has been made by mistake under wrong nomenclature in the return and therefore the proportionate cost of acquisition of the property handed over to the appellant after construction of the project, is only Rs.85,39,301/-, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.

4.

For these and such other grounds it is urged that the order of the learned CIT (A) on the above points may be set aside.

5.

For that the appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend all or any other grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.

2.

Ld. AR, at the outset, submitted that the CIT(A) has not considered the additional grounds of appeal and written

submission of the assessee filed on 31/10/2018, in which it has been specifically claimed that the cost of improvement Rs.57,95,000/- in fact

is the cost of construction borne by the Developer and the property

was only hand over to the appellant on 18/01/2012 after completion

of the project and subsequently sold on 01/02/2013, disclosing Short

Term Capital Gain of Rs.32,72,699/-on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Therefore, ld. AR submitted that the appeal

may kindly be restored to the file of CIT(A) and the CIT(A) may kindly

be directed to consider the additional grounds of appeal filed by the assessee along with written submission.

3.

On the other hand, ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities

below.

4.

We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and carefully perused the material placed on record. During the course of 3 hearing, ld.AR drew our attention to the additional grounds of appeal filed before the CIT(A), Cuttack, copy of which is placed on record and submitted that without considering the same and even the submission of the assessee, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. We have also gone through the additional grounds of appeals which was filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) and on perusal of the appellate order, we also find that the CIT(A) has not taken into consideration the additional grounds of appeal filed by the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we restore the appeal of the assessee to the file of CIT(A) to pass a speaking and reasoned order considering the findings of AO and the submissions of the assessee along with the additional grounds filed by the assessee, after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the CIT(A) in early disposal of the case.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 18/12/ 2019. (C.M.GARG) (L.P.SAHU) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER कटक Cuttack; ददनांक Dated 18/12/2019 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S.

4 आदेश की प्रनिलऱपप अग्रेपषि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीलाथी / The Appellant-

1.

Golla Chandra Mouli, Prop: Parvati Coal Depot, Potapokhari, Chauliaganj, Cuttack प्रत्यथी / The Respondent-

2.

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Cuttack आयकि आयुक्त(अऩील) / The CIT(A), 3. आयकि आयुक्त / CIT 4. ववभागीय प्रनतननधध, आयकि अऩीलीय अधधकिण, कटक / DR, ITAT,

5.

Cuttack गार्ा पाईल / Guard file. 6. सत्यावऩत प्रनत //// आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER,

(Senior Private Secretary) आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक / ITAT, Cuttack

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →