Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH,
Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & DR.DIPAK P.RIPOTE
Per S.S.Godara, JM: These assessee’s twin appeals, both for A.Y.2012-13, arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Pune’s orders dated 30.10.2017 and 17.05.2019 passed in Case Nos.PN/CIT(A)-6/DCIT Cir- 8/10714/2016-17 and No.PN/CIT(A)-6/DCIT Cir-8/ 10356/2018-19, in proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 and u/s.143(3) r.w.s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in short “the Act”; appeal wise respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. Mr. Kulkarni submits at the outset that the assessee presses for the sole common issue of long term capital gain addition amounting to Rs.15,55,00,000/- only wherein the lower authorities have treated the
960/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2012-13 Eagle Flask Industries Pvt. Ltd. entire sale consideration than only the capital gains element therein as taxable under the provisions of the Act.
We note in this limited factual backdrop that there is hardly any much requirement for us to delve deeper in the relevant factual matrix since the assessee’s former appeal is directed against the CIT(A) directions to the Assessing Officer to allow the indexed cost of acquisition in consequential computation (para Nos.
10.2.4. page 8) in his lower appellate order dated 30-10-2017. It further emerges that the Assessing Officer’s consequential order dated 26-11-2018 (forming subject matter of challenge in assessee’s latter appeal nowhere considered the foregoing directions in his consequential computation which stands upheld in the CIT(A) lower appellate order as well. It is thus an instance wherein both the assessing authority as well as the CIT(A) have not considered the assessee’s sole substantive grievance pressed herein pertaining to the computation of the correct long term capital gains amount.
The Revenue vehemently argued that the assessee has not filed the corresponding cost of acquisition details in the lower proceedings. We do not see any such discussion indicating the assessee’s alleged failure before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A); as the case may be, sofar as the latter round of remand proceedings is concerned. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s solitary common
960/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2012-13 Eagle Flask Industries Pvt. Ltd. substantive ground in both these appeals back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh computation of capital gains in tune with the CIT(A)’s former round of directions in Para 10.2.4 dated 30-10-2017. The assessee is also directed to file on record all the relevant details indicating cost of acquisition, if so advised. Ordered accordingly.
No other ground or argument has been pressed before us.
Both these assessee’s appeals Nos.3032/PUN/2017 and 960/PUN/2019 are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.
A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 23rd September, 2022.