Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee preferred an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) regarding capital gains from a joint development agreement. The appeal was filed with a delay of 66 days, which was condoned. The assessee argued that no transaction had taken place and the agreement was later cancelled.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had ignored the fact that the joint development agreement was cancelled and no development work was carried out. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A).
Key Issues
Whether the addition on account of capital gains from a joint development agreement is justified when the agreement was cancelled and no transaction took place.
Sections Cited
2(24), 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA BENCH, VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA
Before: SRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI
Ranjeet Prasad ………….. Appellant Shiv Mandir Lane, Near Mahima Store, P.O. BV College, Patna-800014. (PAN: BFLPP7156K) Vs. ITO, Ward-6(5), Patna .............. Respondent Appearances: Appellant represented by: Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate Respondent represented by: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT Date of concluding the hearing : 20.01.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 20.01.2025 ORDER
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The captioned appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 11.05.2023 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ld. ‘CIT (A)’] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15.
The appeal is time barred by 66 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed. Considering the averments made in the application and shortness of the delay, the delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned.
At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) to submit that in this case, the I.T.A. No.: 270/PAT/2023 Ranjeet Prasad, AY : 2014-15 impugned addition has been made/confirmed by the lower authorities on account of capital gains earned by the assessee on execution of joint development agreement. The Ld. Counsel has submitted that in fact, no transaction has taken place in terms of section 2(24) of the Act read with relevant provisions of Transfer of Property Act on the execution of joint development agreement. The ld. Counsel has further submitted that even the said joint development agreement was later on cancelled and no development work was carried out. However, this very fact, which goes to the root of the case has been totally ignored by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel, therefore, has submitted that the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to thoroughly go through the factual aspects of the case and then decide the matter in accordance with law.
Considering the aforesaid submissions of the Ld. Counsel, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside. Matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the same afresh after giving due opportunity to the assessee to present his case and considering the documents furnished by him and thereafter to decide the matter in accordance with law by way of a speaking order.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court.