BIKASH AGARWALLA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), BHUBANESWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 349/CTK/2017Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 April 2018AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A), dismissing the assessee's grounds regarding the claim of indexed cost of acquisition and incidental expenses. The Tribunal also noted that no arguments were advanced for the consequential levy of interest.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold a house property and claimed a loss under long-term capital gains. The Assessing Officer (AO) used the government benchmark value for sale consideration and the assessee's disclosed indexed cost of acquisition. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's computation but advised to rectify a mistake in the cost inflation index.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO correctly computed the long-term capital gain by using the government benchmark value and the assessee's disclosed indexed cost of acquisition, and whether the assessee was entitled to additional expenses.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 50C,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: S/SHRI N.S SAINI & PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Shri Niranjan Mishra, AR
For Respondent: Shri A. Tigga, DR
Hearing: 26/04

1 ITA No .349/ CTK/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 14- 201 5

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.349/CTK/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-2015

Bikash Agarwalla, F-31/2, Vs. ITO, Ward -2(3), BJB Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No.ADMPA 5067 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Niranjan Mishra, AR Revenue by : Shri A. Tigga, DR

Date of Hearing : 26/04/ 2018 Date of Pronouncement : 26 /04/ 2018

O R D E R Per N.S.Saini, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the

CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar dated 22.6.2017 for the assessment year 2014-

15.

2.

The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:

“1. For that the order of assessment dated.04.02.2016 received on dated05.02.2016 passed by Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(3) Bhubaneswar and order dated 22nd June 2017, received by the Assessee on 18th July 2017 are void abintio, against the natural justice, unjustified, erroneous, arbitrary, contrary to fact, bad in law, without jurisdiction and /or in excess of jurisdiction and legally untenable.

2.

For that the non-consideration of claim of assessee of indexed cost of acquisition amounting to Rs.59;39,712, while computing Capital Gain under income tax act and non-consideration of the expenditure amounting Rs.5,34,360.00, incidental to the acquisition, for which the evidences were produced, is arbitrary, unjustified and not tenable in the eyes of law. Hence liable to be recomputed.

2 ITA No .349/ CTK/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 14- 201 5 3.For that the non-consideration of claim of deduction amounting to Rs.1,50,000, though evidence provided during the course of assessment proceeding, while computing Income from House Property under income tax act is arbitrary, unjustified and not tenable in the eyes of law. Hence liable to be considered.

4.For that consequential levy of interest U/s. 234A amounting to Rs.25,824/- and u/s 234B for Rs.74,244/- and u/s 234D for Rs.2,122 is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law and hence liable to be recomputed.”

3.

Ground No.1 of appeal is general in nature and hence, requires no

separate adjudication.

4.

With regard to Ground No.2 & 3 of appeal, the facts of the case are

that the Assessing Officer found that the assessee had disclosed loss of

Rs.16,59,241/- under the head “ Long term capital gain” in the return of

income on sale of a house property on 30.7.2013. The Assessing Officer

noticed that the assessee had purchased one two storied house property

in Plot No.66/71, Khata No.16/130 for Rs.29,50,000/- on 31.3.2008 and

sold the property at Rs.33,00,000/- as is evident from the sale deed as

against the prevailing government bench mark value of Rs.68,,07,250/-..

Therefore, the Assessing Officer applying the provisions of section 50C of

the Act took the full value of consideration received on sale of house

property as Rs.68,07,250/- and computed the long-term capital gain at

Rs.17,79,936/-. While taking this view, the Assessing Officer took the

cost of acquisition with indexation at the same amount of Rs.50,27,324/-

as disclosed by the assessee in the return of income.

5.

On appeal, the CIT(A) held as under:

3 ITA No .349/ CTK/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 14- 201 5 “ In the course of appeal hearing, through a lengthy written submission, the assessee pleads that the cost of acquisition should have been taken as claimed by the assessee in revised computation of capital gains filed at the time of assessment. A number of case laws have been referred to in the written submission most of which have no or little relevance to the point in question. I am of the view that the AO is quite right in adopting the indexed cost of acquisition as mentioned in return of income. Claim of additional expenses without any evidence clearly appears to be an afterthought and cannot be accepted. In the course of appeal hearing, the assessee's Id. AR has pointed out that there is a mistake in calculation of the indexed cost of acquisition since the cost inflation index for the AY 2007-08 has been wrongly taken at 651 instead of 551. The request of the Id. AR is that the same should be rectified and capital gains should be calculated accordingly. This claim of the assessee appears to be correct and acceptable. The AO is advised to verify this point and compute the capital gains by taking the cost inflation index for the AY 2007-08 as 551. Subject to this direction, the computation of capital gains as has been made by the AO is confirmed.”

6.

At the time of hearing, ld A.R. reiterated the submissions made

before the lower authorities. He could not point out any specific error in

the order of the CIT(A). Hence, we find no good reason to interfere with

the order of the CIT(A), which is hereby confirmed and Ground No.2 & 3

of appeal of the assessee are dismissed.

7.

With regard to Ground No.4 of appeal, no arguments were

advanced by ld A.R. of the assessee. The charging of interest u/s.234A,

234B and 234D is consequential.

9.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced on 26 /04/2018. SD/- SD/- (Pavan Kumar Gadale) (N.S Saini) JUDICIALMEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

4 ITA No .349/ CTK/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 14- 201 5 Cuttack; Dated 26 /04/2018 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Bikash Agarwalla, F-31/2, BJB Nagar, Bhubaneswar 2. The Respondent. ITO, Ward -2(3), Bhubaneswar 3. The CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar 4. Pr.CIT-1, Bhubaneswar 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER,

SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, Cuttack

More judgments on Section 50C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →