MR SUNIT MATHUR,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5977/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 March 2020AY 2012-1315 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed a speaking order with detailed reasons on merits. In the absence of any new material from the assessee, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed exemption from capital gains under Section 54(1) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) disallowed this exemption, holding that Section 54(2) was applicable instead.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was eligible for exemption under Section 54(1) or if Section 54(2) was applicable for capital gains exemption.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54(1),Section 54(2),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’: NEW DELHI

Before: SMT. DIVA SINGH & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA

(A) This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned appellate order dated 26.09.2016 passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-37, New Delhi, [in short, “Ld.CIT(A)”] pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

“1. The Learned CIT (Appeals) 37, New Delhi and the A.O. has erred in law and in facts in sustaining the disallowance of exemption of Rs. 66,57,730.00 from capital gains by applying wrong provisions of law as applicable in this regard which act of the authorities below are arbitrary and unjust.

ITA No.- 5977/Del/2016. Sunit Mathur. 2. The Learned CIT(Appeals) 37, New Delhi has erred on facts and in law in rejecting the claim of the assessee for exemption from capital gains u/s 54(1) of the Income tax Act and upholding the disallowance of Rs. 66,57,730.00 which act of the CIT (Appeals) is arbitrary and unjust.

3.

The Learned CIT (Appeals) 37, New Delhi has misread and misapplied the provisions of Section 54(1) read with Section 54(2) of the Income-tax Act, holding that provisions of Section 54(2) are applicable which act of the CIT (Appeals) is arbitrary and unjust.”

(B) Vide Assessment Order dated 16.03.2015 passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “I.T. Act”). The relevant portion of the Assessment Order dated 16.03.2015 is reproduced as under:-

“

ITA No.- 5977/Del/2016. Sunit Mathur. ITA No.- 5977/Del/2016. Sunit Mathur. ITA No.- 5977/Del/2016. Sunit Mathur. ITA No.- 5977/Del/2016. Sunit Mathur. ITA No.- 5977/Del/2016. Sunit Mathur. ITA No.- 5977/Del/2016. Sunit Mathur.

”

(C) The Assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 26.09.2016, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed assessee’s appeal. The relevant portion of the order dated 26.09.2016 of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:

ITA No.- 5977/Del/2016. Sunit Mathur. ITA No.- 5977/Del/2016. Sunit Mathur. ITA No.- 5977/Del/2016. Sunit Mathur. ITA No.- 5977/Del/2016. Sunit Mathur.

”

ITA No.- 5977/Del/2016. Sunit Mathur. (D) This present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 26.09.2016 of the Ld. CIT(A). At the time of hearing, Revenue was represented by Shri Saras Kumar, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (“Ld. Sr. DR”, for short). However, none was present from the assessee’s side. In the absence of any representation from assessee’s side, at the time of hearing before us, we heard the Ld. Sr. DR; who relied upon the order dated 16.03.2015 of the Assessing Officer and the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 26.09.2016 of the Ld. CIT(A). After perusal of the materials on record, including the order of the AO and the aforesaid impugned order dated 26.09.2016 of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed speaking order on merits. Relevant portion of the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) has already been reproduced in foregoing paragraph (C) of this order. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has given detailed reasons for his decision on merits in the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 26.09.2016 of Ld. CIT(A). During appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”, for short) no material has been brought for our consideration to persuade us to take a view different from the view taken by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order on merit. After hearing the Ld. Sr. DR and after perusal of materials on record, and further, in view of the foregoing discussion, we decline to interfere with the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 26.09.2016 of Ld. CIT(A), and accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

(E) Before we part; we explicitly clarify that the assessee will be at liberty to approach ITAT for restoration of the appeal in accordance with Proviso to Rule 24 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal), Rules, 1963. If the assessee

ITA No.- 5977/Del/2016. Sunit Mathur. does approach ITAT for restoration of the appeals in ITAT, the matter will be considered in accordance with law having regard to the facts and circumstances.

(F) In the result, appeal filed by Assessee is dismissed.

Order is pronounced in Open Court on 06/03/2020.

More judgments on Section 54(1)

All 31 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →