Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE
Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & SHRI G.D.PADMAHSHALI
आयकर अपीलसं. / िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Bhavanalal Asarma The Income Tax Officer, Satikar, Vs Ward-1(3), Jalna. Bansipura, Old Modha, Kadbi . Mandi, Dist. Jalna – 431203. PAN: DZJPS 2230 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by None. Revenue by Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – DR Date of hearing 01/12/2022 Date of pronouncement 12/12/2022 आदेश/ ORDER
Per S.S.Godara, JM:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is directed against the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)-1, Pune’s order in case no.ABD/CIT(A)/200/2014-15 dated 05/05/2014, in proceedings u/s.144 r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”].
Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. for A.Y. 2010-11 (A) Shri Bhavanalal Asarma Satikar
We notice with the able assistance coming from the Revenue’s side that the Assessing Officer appears to have added assessee’s long term capital gain at Rs.89,60,231/- qua his sale proceeds carrying 80.62% share; coming to Rs.95,64,600/- received in the relevant previous year. His capital asset(s) herein was land admeasuring 19 acres 14 GUNTAS falling within the jurisdiction of Jalna Municipal Corporation.
The Revenue could hardly dispute that the Assessing Officer’s detailed discussion in para 5 page 9 that the later authority nowhere determined this taxpayers cost of acquisitions on 01/04/1981 under section 55A(a) of the Act. All what the Revenue has argued before us is that the assessee’s cousin brother had adopted 15% of the sale value as the said cost of acquisition which stood rejected, thereafter only, the Assessing Officer determined per acre cost of acquisition in light of increase in the cost of inflation @3,000 points and further considered priced hike of at least 100 times w.e.f. foregoing date.
We observe in this factual backdrop that such a course of action by the departmental authorities is nowhere prescribed under the provisions of the Act wherein the capital gain are to be computed in light of the corresponding stipulations in section 49 r.w.s 55A(a) of the Act. We therefore conclude in this clinching factual backdrop that not only the Assessing Officer had failed to determine the for A.Y. 2010-11 (A) Shri Bhavanalal Asarma Satikar assessee’s correct cost of acquisition but also the ld.CIT(A) has fallen in error in not complying with the foregoing statutory provisions. We therefore, restore the assessee’s instant sole substantive grievance back to the Assessing Officer for his fresh appropriate adjudication on merits as per law. Ordered accordingly.
Delay of 5 days in filing of the appeal stands condoned in larger interest of justice.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 12th December, 2022.