LATE SH. RAJINDER KUMAR MANCHANDA, LEGAL HEIR SMT. RAJNI MANCHANDA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 855/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 December 2019AY 2011-1214 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 found that the CIT(A) had passed a speaking order on merits with detailed reasons. Since no new material was presented to persuade the Tribunal to differ from the CIT(A)'s view, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which partly allowed the appeal. The dispute concerned the disallowance of indexation cost of improvement on a property transfer. The assessee contended the transfer occurred in AY 2009-10, not the relevant AY 2011-12.

What were the issues?

The key issue was whether the property transfer, for the purpose of capital gains taxation, occurred in Assessment Year 2009-10 as claimed by the assessee, or in Assessment Year 2011-12 as determined by the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(47),Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA

[A] This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned appellate order dated 14.09.2016 passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, New Delhi, [in short, “Ld.CIT(A)”] pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

“1. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not concluding that the finding of Ld. ITO were erroneous in law, contrary to facts and were based on mere surmises and conjectures. Page | 1

ITA No.- 855/Del/2017. Late Shri Rajinder Kumar Manchanda

2.

That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ITO have erred in making Addition of INR 10,11,150 to the Income of the Assessee for disallowance of indexation cost of improvement in the Assessment Year 2011-12 wherein infact the sale transaction has taken place during the Assessment Year 2009-10

3.

That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not concluding that the transfer under section 2(47) of the aforesaid property in relation to the addition of INR 10,11,150 to the income of the Assessee for disallowance of indexation cost of improvement took place in the Assessment Year 2009-10

4.

That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee has transferred the property on 3/12/2008 by an collaboration agreement, existing structure was demolished and a four storey house was constructed therein by the builder. The possession was duly transferred on 03/12/2008 by the Assessee to the Builder by way of collaboration agreement. That consideration has passed on 3/12/2008 as a right to have one floor and 25 % share in the plot which is undivided share. Accordingly transfer under section 2(47) of the aforesaid property took place in the Assessment Year 2009-10.

5.

That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not concluding that no tax liability arises in the present relevant Asst. Year 2011-12 as the transfer under section 2(47) of the aforesaid property took place in the Assessment Year 2009-10.

6.

The Appellant prays that the addition/ disallowance of Rs. 10,11,150 made to the income of the Assessee for disallowance Of indexation cost of improvement took place in the Assessment Year 2009-10 by the Ld ITO be deleted

The above grounds are without prejudice to each other

ITA No.- 855/Del/2017. Late Shri Rajinder Kumar Manchanda The Appellant craves leave to alter, amend, or withdraw all or any of Grounds of Objections contained herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing of objections”

[B] Vide Assessment Order dated 04.03.2014 passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the I.T. Act”). The relevant portion of the Assessment Order dated 04.03.2014 is reproduced as under:-

“

ITA No.- 855/Del/2017. Late Shri Rajinder Kumar Manchanda ITA No.- 855/Del/2017. Late Shri Rajinder Kumar Manchanda ITA No.- 855/Del/2017. Late Shri Rajinder Kumar Manchanda

”

[C] The Assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 14.09.2016, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee’s appeal. The relevant portion of the order dated 14.09.2016 of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:

“

ITA No.- 855/Del/2017. Late Shri Rajinder Kumar Manchanda ITA No.- 855/Del/2017. Late Shri Rajinder Kumar Manchanda ITA No.- 855/Del/2017. Late Shri Rajinder Kumar Manchanda ITA No.- 855/Del/2017. Late Shri Rajinder Kumar Manchanda ITA No.- 855/Del/2017. Late Shri Rajinder Kumar Manchanda

”

[D] This present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 14.09.2016 of the Ld. CIT(A). At the time of hearing, Revenue was represented by Shri Surender Pal, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (“Ld. Sr. DR”, for short). However, none was present from the assessee’s side. In the absence of any representation from assessee’s side, at the time Page | 11

ITA No.- 855/Del/2017. Late Shri Rajinder Kumar Manchanda of hearing before us, we heard the Ld. Sr. DR; who relied upon the order dated 04.03.2014 of the Assessing Officer and the aforesaid impugned order dated 14.09.2016 of the Ld. CIT(A). After perusal of the materials on record, including the order of the AO and the aforesaid impugned order dated 14.09.2016 of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed speaking order on merits. Relevant portion of the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) has already been reproduced in foregoing paragraph [C] of this order. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has given detailed reasons for his decision on merits in the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 14.09.2016 of Ld. CIT(A). During appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”, for short) no material has been brought for our consideration to persuade us to take a view different from the view taken by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order on merit. After hearing the Ld. Sr. DR and after perusal of materials on record, and further, in view of the foregoing discussion, we decline to interfere with the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 14.09.2016 of Ld. CIT(A), and accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

[E] Before we part; we explicitly clarify that the assessee will be at liberty to approach ITAT for restoration of the appeal in accordance with Proviso to Rule 24 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal), Rules, 1963. If the assessee does approach ITAT for restoration of the appeals in ITAT, the matter will be considered in accordance with law having regard to the facts and circumstances.

ITA No.- 855/Del/2017. Late Shri Rajinder Kumar Manchanda [F] In the result, appeal filed by Assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 12/12/2019.

More judgments on Section 2(47)

All 851 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(47) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →