SHRI NITIN SHAMJI SHAH,MADURAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD-2(5), MADURAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 161/CHNY/2022Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 September 2022AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeal back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to ensure a consistent stand by the revenue, aligning with a similar decision in the assessee's wife's case.

What were the facts?

The assessee admitted capital gains of Rs. 3.39 Lacs from the sale of a property. The Assessing Officer applied Section 50C, rejecting the claim that the property was agricultural land, and the CIT(A) confirmed this. The assessee appealed this decision.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the computation of capital gains, specifically whether the property in question was agricultural land and the applicability of Section 50C.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 50C,Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A/SMC’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: 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) 2008-09 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Madurai [CIT(A)] dated 20-11-2019 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s.143(3) r/w s. 147 of the Act on 27-03-2013. The sole issue in the appeal is computation of capital gains.

2.

The registry has noted a delay of 785 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by Ld. AR on the basis of condonation petition dated 21.07.2022. The Ld. AR has submitted that 2 - the appeal could not be filed due to lockdown situation arising out of Covid-19 Pandemic. After excluding the period of exclusion, the effective delay was for 56 days only. The Ld. Sr. DR opposed the condonation of delay. However, accepting the pleadings of Ld. AR, I condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.

3.

The Ld. AR, at the outset, submitted that the property was jointly owned by the assessee along with her wife. The Ld. AR placed on record a copy of order passed by Tribunal in the case of assessee’s wife Smt. Nayna Nitin Shah in dated 08.11.2021 wherein the issue has been restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR submitted that this appeal may also be restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to enable to revenue to take consistent stand in the matter.

4.

I find that the assessee admitted capital gain of Rs.3.39 Lacs for sale of certain property. The Ld. AO applied the provisions of Sec. 50C and rejected the claim of the assessee that the property was agricultural land. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the stand of Ld. AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before me.

5.

With a view to enable the revenue to take consistent stand in the matter, I accept the argument of Ld. AR and restore the appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in line with the adjudication done in assessee’s wife case. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case.

6.

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 19th September, 2022.

More judgments on Section 50C

All 3,223 judgments and leading authorities on Section 50C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →