ASHOK KUMAR SINGHAL,BULANDSHAHR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, BULANDSHAHR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4086/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 January 2020AY 2006-074 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the Department's appeal for the same assessment year was dismissed by the ITAT. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO to pass an order afresh in light of the ITAT's directions.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased the right to receive land compensation and claimed indexation benefit. The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the claim, and the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal against the AO's order passed under Section 154.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is entitled to indexation benefit on the cost of acquiring the right to receive compensation, and whether the AO correctly gave effect to the appellate orders.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154,Section 143(3),Section 251

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI & SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA

Hearing: 09.01.2020

of the Act requesting for rectification of errors in the order u/s 251/143(3) of the Act as noted in the impugned order. The AO in the impugned order u/s 154 rejected the application u/s 154 and also noted that appeal of the Department is pending before ITAT against the order of the CIT(A). The assessee challenged the order u/s 154 dated 18.08.2011 before Ld. CIT(A).

Detailed written submission of assessee is incorporated in the appellate order. The Ld. CIT(A), however, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. His findings in para 5 to 6 are reproduced as under:

“5. Appellate Findings: 5.1 I have considered submission of the appellant, assessment order and all case laws referred to therein. No statement of facts has been given along with Form 35. Thus, all the facts given in the order dt. 18.08.2011 are treated as true and correct fact. 5.2 Ground nos. 1 to 4: The appellant challenged the order passed u/s 154 to compute the total income of the appellant at Rs. 15,65,830/-. The appellant bought right to receive land compensation from the owner of land acquired by Government. According to the appellant the treatment of entire transaction of purchase and sale of ‘rights to receive compensation’ has been treated as a business transaction.

Ashok Kumar Singhal, Bulandshahr Vs. ACIT / I.T.A.No.4086/Del/2017/A.Y.2006-07 Page 3 of 4 According to the appellant the benefit of indexation on cost of purchase of ‘right to receive compensation’ should have been given to the appellant while giving appeal effect. Examination of facts reveals that indexation of cost of acquisition was never claimed by the appellant in the original appeal preferred against order u/s 143(3) dt. 30.07.2008 of DCIT-Circle-Bulandhshahr, thus, has never been adjudicated by CIT(A) in his order dt. 31.01.2011. This fact has been admitted by appellant vide order sheet entry dt. 28.05.2017 and it has also been admitted that appellant never claimed the benefit of indexation treating it as a capital asset. 5.2.1 Similarly, appellant has challenged the taxation of Rs. 13,53,597/- by the AO while giving the appeal effect, being the interest accrued as part of compensation received by the appellant. The facts of the case are as per returned income appellant himself declared interest of Rs. 13,53,597/-. The AO did not make any addition but accepted appellant’s contention in accordance with the TDS certificate only. Thus, no addition on account of accrued interest was made during assessment u/s 143(3). In view of these facts, the appellant’s claim u/s 154 to 251/143(3) is not maintainable and thus dismissed. In view of these facts the contention of the appellant that there is any prima facie mistake in giving appeal effect u/s 251 is not maintainable and thus dismissed.

6.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.”

3.

We have heard Ld. Representatives of both the parties and perused the material on record. Ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that Departmental appeal for assessment year under appeal has been dismissed by ITAT, Delhi ‘A’ Bench in vide order dated 29.01.2016, copy of which is filed at page 19 of the Paper Book. He has submitted that the appeal effect should have been given as per directions of the ITAT order dated 29.01.2016. Both the parties, therefore, suggested that the matter may be remanded to the AO to pass the order

Ashok Kumar Singhal, Bulandshahr Vs. ACIT / I.T.A.No.4086/Del/2017/A.Y.2006-07 Page 4 of 4 u/s 154/251/254 of the Act as per directions of the Tribunal dated 29.01.2016.

4.

In this view of the matter, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and restore the matter in issue to the file of AO with direction to pass the order u/s 154 afresh as per law in the light of directions of the Tribunal dated 29.01.2016 in for assessment year under appeal i.e. 2006-07. The AO shall give reasonable sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing the order.

5.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court.

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →