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

- 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.

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.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes.