KELKAR BROTHERS SALES PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 438/PUN/2020Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 August 2022AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the assessee's grounds on merits as required by law. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed indexation for long-term capital gains from FY 2002-03 based on an agreement to sell. The Assessing Officer granted indexation from FY 2005-06, following a revision order under Section 263.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the appeal on merits, and whether the assessee is entitled to indexation from FY 2002-03 based on the agreement to sell.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 263,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM & SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM

For Appellant: Shri C.V.Deshpande
For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Hearing: 21.06.2022Pronounced: 29.08.2022

आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM :

1.

This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 is directed against the CIT(A)-7, Pune’s order dated 01/07/2019 passed in case No. PN/CIT(A)-7/Wd- 14/10301/2018-19 involving proceeding u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short "the Act”. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

Kelkar Brothers Sales Pvt.Ltd.,

2.

The assessee raises the following twin substantive ground in the instant appeal.

“1. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned assessing officer erred in granting indexation for working out long term capital gains on sale of immovable property from the FY 2005- 06 instead of FY 2002-03.

2. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned assessing officer erred in not recognizing the legal ownership of the assessee company of the immovable property sold in the instant year from FY 2002-03 on the basis of agreement to sale thereby depriving the assessee the benefit of indexation from FY 2002-03 and working out incorrect capital gains amounting to Rs.553929/-”

3.

A perusal of the case records and more particularly the CIT(A) order in para 5.1 page 4 suggests that he has not even entertained the assessee’s lower appeal on account of the fact that the Assessing Officer has declined its cost of acquisition as per the PCIT -6, Pune’s section 263 revision directions dated 09.03.2018. It is in this clinching backdrop of facts that we see no merit in the lower appellate discussion as it has not adjudicated the taxpayer’s corresponding substantive grounds on merits in light of section 250(6) of the Act requiring of framing of points of determination followed by a detailed discussion thereupon. It is further made clear that any assessment framed even consequence to section 263 revision directions always forms subject matter of appellate remedy provide under the statute. Faced with the Kelkar Brothers Sales Pvt.Ltd., situation, we restore the assessee’s instant substantive ground(s) back to the CIT(A) for his afresh adjudication on merit as per law. Ordered accordingly.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose in above terms.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 29th day of August, 2022.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →