SMT VASANTI HEGDE,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1903/BANG/2017Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 February 2020AY 2008-093 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not issue a direction to tax the capital gains in AY 2007-08, but rather expressed an opinion that the assessee was liable to be taxed in that year. Therefore, the appeal against the CIT(A)'s order was rejected.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold a property on 03-03-2008, and the AO re-opened the assessment for AY 2008-09 to tax the capital gains. The CIT(A) agreed that the gains were not taxable in AY 2008-09 but directed that they should be taxed in AY 2007-08.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) has the power to direct taxation in a different assessment year than the one under appeal, and whether the CIT(A)'s observation constituted such a direction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH ‘B’

Before: SHRI N.V VASUDEVAN, VICE- & SHRI B.R.BASKARANSmt Vasanthi Hegde

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITP
For Respondent: Shri Priyadharshi Misra, JCIT

This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order dated 23- 06-2017 of CIT(A)-7, Bengaluru and it relates to assessment year 2008-09

2.

At the time of hearing the learned AR submitted that the assessee is pressing only ground no.2 and accordingly submitted that other grounds are not pressed. The learned AR also made necessary endorsement in the grounds of appeal.

2 3. The ground no.2 reads as under: “ The learned AO has erred in holding that the capital gains are chargeable to tax for the AY: 2007-08 without appreciating the fact that the AY: 2007-08 was not a subject matter of appeal or assessment”.

4.

The ld. AR submitted that the assessee had entered into an agreement for selling a property which was an industrial vacant site located at 8th Main Road, Ward no.11, Bangalore. The agreement was entered on 16-06-2005. Thereafter, a General Power of Attorney was executed on 17-10-2006. Finally, the assessee sold the property on 03-03-2008 by executing a conveyance deed. The AO re-opened the assessment for assessment year 2008-09 by issuing notice u/s 148 of the IT Act, 1961 and assessed the long term capital gains in assessment year 2008-09.

4. The assessee challenged the assessment order by filing an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who concurred with the contention of the assessee that the long term capital gains is not assessable in assessment year 2008-09. The ld.AR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) after having held so gave direction to the AO to assess the capital gains in assessment year 2007-08. The ld. AR submitted that the direction so given by the ld.CIT(A) is beyond his powers as he has to confine himself to file an appeal before him being assessment year 2008-09. Accordingly, the ld.AR prayed that the direction so given by ld.CIT(A) may be set aside.

5.

We have heard ld. DR and perused the records.

6.

The relevant observation made by CIT(A)relating to the contentions of the assessee read as under; “ 6. In view of the above I am of the considered view that the appellant is liable to be taxed in the AY: 2007-08 and therefore, the liability of capital gains imposed for AY:

3 2008-09 is directed to be deleted. The share of appellant in the property and the determination of guidance value for AY: 2008-09 is inconsequential for the instant year, thus the same is not adjudicated and are treated as dismissed for statistical purposes”.

7.

A perusal of the aforesaid observation of the ld.CIT(A) would show that the ld.CIT(A) has not given any direction as contended by the ld.AR. In our view, the ld.CIT(A) upon consideration of the facts has taken the view that the assessee is liable to be taxed in assessment year 2007-08 in respect of capital gains arising on transfer of the impugned land. The view so expressee, in our opinion, cannot be considered as direction given by ld.CIT(A). Hence, we do not find any merit in the contention of the ld.AR. Accordingly, we reject the appeal filed by the assessee.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28-02-2020.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →