MS. SANDHYALAKSHMI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC2(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 914/CHNY/2020Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 November 20223 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's submission that the appellate order was based on incorrect facts. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the CIT(A) to pass a fresh order after considering the correct factual matrix.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal arose from an order based on an erroneous set of facts. The assessment order for the wife was adjudicated considering the facts of the husband's case, despite the husband being deceased and the assessment being framed in the name of the legal heir. A corrigendum issued by the CIT(A) confirmed the appellate order pertained to the wife.

What were the issues?

Whether the appellate order was passed based on an erroneous assumption of facts, leading to prejudice to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai [CIT(A)] dated 18-02-2020 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s.143(3) of the Act on 24-12-2018. The Registry has noted delay of 205 days in the appeal which stand condoned since the time available to file the appeal fall within lockdown situation arising out of Covid-19 Pandemic.

1.

- 2 - 2. The Ld. AR, at the outset, submitted that the impugned order is based on erroneous set of facts. The Ld. AR submitted that Shri Setlur Parthasarathy Dwarakanathan (PAN AANPD-0020-C) and his wife Smt. Sandhyalakshmi Dwarakanathan (PAN AANPD-0021-D) was joint owner of a property. The husband was assessed vide order dated 26.12.2018 whereas the wife was assessed vide assessment order dated 24.12.2018. In husband’s case, the dispute was with respect to cost of acquisition / improvement whereas the dispute in the case of wife was year of indexation. Since the husband was no more, the assessment was framed in the name of legal heir Smt. Sandhyalakshmi Dwarakanathan. The Ld. AR submitted that husband’s appeal is still pending before Ld. CIT(A) whereas wife’s appeal has been disposed-off by Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 18.02.2020 which is under challenge in this appeal. A corrigendum has been issued by Ld. CIT(A) on 16.09.2020 which would show that appellate order pertains to wife Smt. Sandhyalakshmi Dwarakanathan. However, the appeal has been adjudicated considering the facts of husband’s case. Accordingly, Ld. AR submitted that the appellate order has been framed on erroneous assumption of facts and therefore, the appeal may be restored back to Ld. CIT(A). The same could not be controverted by Ld. Sr. DR.

3.

Accordingly, concurring with aforesaid submissions made by Ld. AR, we set aside the impugned order and direct Ld. CIT(A) to pass fresh order considering correct factual matrix.

ITA No.914/Chny/2020 - 3 -

4.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 21st November, 2022.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →