GUJARAT COMPOSITE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 6(1),, KOLKATA

Gujarat Composite Limited, 14, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata - 700001 [PAN: AABCG0950D] ……..…...…………….... Appellant vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, P-7, Chowringhee Square, 6th Floor, Kolkata - 700069 ................................ Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : B.B. Payra, A.R. Department represented by : Dipu Koley, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Date of concluding the hearing : 19.11.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 20.11.2025 O R D E R

PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.1 In this case, the Ld.AO made an addition of Rs. 4,79,96,183/- on account of Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG), on the basis of finding given in paras 3.3 and 3.4 of his order.

1.2 The assessee carried this issue before the Ld. CIT(A), where also he could not succeed on the basis of the following findings:

“The reply of the appellant is considered. The AO had observed that, the Gujarat Composite Limited appellant had not offered entire amount of sales consideration received during the year. As claimed by the appellant, part amount was received by M/S. Raj Corporation, the Confirming Party. Further, the appellant had claimed that, Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was executed between the Appellant Company, the Vendor and M/S. Raj Corporation, the Confirming Party on 25.11.2006 and the same was duly attested by Roopa Viren Shah, a Notary Public of Ahmedabad. As per terms and conditions of the said MOU the Appellant Company, the Vendor had agreed to sale M/S. Raj Corporation, the Confirming Party various plots of land as mentioned in the said MOU, However, AO's order is silent on the aspect of examinations of such MOU during the assessment proceedings. Before me also, the appellant had not furnished copy of such MOU. Under such circumstances, it is difficult to accept the claim of the appellant. Therefore, I am of the opinion that AO had correctly held that entire sale consideration was offered for tax during the FY 2014-15.” 1.3 Further aggrieved, the assessee has approached the ITAT with the following grounds:

“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. C.I.T (A)erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in treating the sales of the land the possession of which could not be handed over to the buyers due to legal obligation and which could be handed over only on 16.02.2016 as per Arbitrator's Award. Sales proceeds of the said lands were accounted for in the subsequent year.

4. That the computation of Long-Term Capital Gain as made by the Assessing Officer by taking the full value of sales consideration of Rs. 16,23,59,575/-being the aggregate value of three deeds, whereas actual amount of sales proceeds were received by the Appellant Company was Rs.8,30,34,480/-only which have been clearly stipulated in the Sales Deeds itself. In the circumstances, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the computation made by the A.O. which is erroneous. 5 That the Appellant craves leave to submit further grounds or alter, amend or modify the grounds already taken before or at the time of hearing of the Appeal.”

2. Right at the outset, the Ld. AR prayed that this matter may be remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) since the assessee wanted to present fresh evidence in his favour which was now available for consideration.

2.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below and stated that there would be no objection in case the matter was remanded back.

Gujarat Composite Limited 3. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have gone through the documents before us. Since the present matter is entirely based on facts, and the authorities below have taken a view based on the documents before them, we are considerably persuaded by the Ld. AR’s averments that they have new documents in possession which could shed more light on the issue and allow the authorities below to arrive at a fair conclusion. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee would present fresh evidence before the Ld. CIT(A), who would be free to call for a remand report from the Ld. AO.