UMESH CHAND BHARGAVA,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), MEERUT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1211/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 February 2020AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that sufficient opportunity was not provided by the revenue authorities. Therefore, the issues were set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order regarding capital gains. The grounds of appeal included disputes over the share in property, short allowance of Section 54EC deduction, and computation of taxable capital gain based on stamp duty valuation instead of actual consideration.

What were the issues?

Whether the capital gains were correctly computed based on stamp duty valuation or actual consideration, and if sufficient opportunity was given to the assessee to present evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54EC,Section 50C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘SMC’ BENCH, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Aggarwal, CA

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals], Meerut dated 14.12.2017 pertaining to assessment year 2010-11 on the following grounds:-

1. That the authorities below, the AO and the CIT(A), have proceeded on incorrect facts and have erred in holding that the assessee’s share in the impugned property is 1/3rd and not 1/4th as claimed by the assessee.

2. That the exemption / deduction u/s. 54EC has been short allowed and the authorities below have erred in computing / confirming the deduction in respect of investment in bonds amounting to Rs. 24,00,000/- u/s. 54EC with reference to Stamp Duty valuation while it ought to have been allowed with reference to net consideration received.

3. That the authorities below have erred in assessing / confirming the amount of taxable capital gain at Rs. 21,16,450/- as against capital loss of Rs. 5,22,975/- as returned by the assessee.

4. That alternatively but without prejudice the Taxable Capital Gain as computed / confirmed by the lower authorities below at Rs. 21,16,450/- as against capital loss of Rs. 5,22,975/- is highly excessive. 5. That the authorities below have erred in computing / confirming the capital gain on the basis of stamp duty valuation u/s. 50C instead of actual consideration which was settled in court proceedings between the three vendors and their other brother Vinod Prakash Bhargava in course of civil suit proceedings in respect of the impugned properties which was an ancestral property and was a subject matter of litigation. Section 50C in substance even did not apply to the facts of the case. 6. That the authorities below have not appreciated the fact correctly and the several observations as made and inferences as drawn are grossly misconceived and even factually incorrect. 2. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the Revenue Authorities have not given sufficient opportunity to the assessee for substantiating the claim. He requested that assessee is having all the documentary evidences which he has filed

More judgments on Section 54EC

All 476 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54EC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →