SMT. SHYAMALI RAY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 45(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 589/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 September 2019AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the impugned income pertained to a sale deed executed in the preceding assessment year. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for appropriate assessment in AY 2012-13.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2013-14 involved disallowance of renovation/construction costs and additions for investment and cash deposits. The sale deed, however, was executed in AY 2012-13.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the correct assessment year for the income arising from the sale of property, given the date of the sale deed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 54,Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : KOLKATA

Before: Hon’ble Shri S.S. Godara, JM & Hon’ble Shri Dr. Arjun Lal Saini] Smt. Shyamali Ray

ORDER Shri S.S. Godara, JM:

1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14 arises against the CIT(A), 13, Kolkata’s order dated 10-12-2016 passed in case no. 285/CIT(A)-13/Kol/2015-16 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( in short ‘Act’).

Heard both the learned parties. Case file perused.

2.

The assessee raises the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal:-

1. That the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that some renovation work are required to be done in a 100 years old property subjected to ownership changes four time and also overlooked the additional construction work of 354 sq.ft. made thereon as noted in the sale deed and hence the disallowance of renovation and construction cost of Rs. 1250,000/- is totally against the facts and merits of the case and can not be sustained.

2. That the CIT(A) totally erred is holding that the investment of Rs. 7,00,000/- through in time, was made not out of LTCG but out of undisclosed and unexplained fund without realizing that the law does not require that such investment will have to be out of the L.T.C.G fund only and not out of any other available fund and such an erroneous finding cannot be accepted and hence, the investment of Rs. 7,00,000/- 'n REC Bond has to be allowed u/s. 54 and the addition of the same u/s. 69C has to be deleted.

3. That the CIT(A) was totally unjustified in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- being cash deposit with SBI u/s. 69C without considering the material facts as explained and thus arrived at n injudicious and impractical conclusion which has to be cancelled and the addition made u/s. 69C be deleted.

3.

It transpires at the outset that both the learned lower authorities have added the impugned long term capital gains in A/y before us i.e 2013-14 whereas relevant sale deed forming part of the case had taken placed on 10/02/2012 i.e in previous relevant to A/y 2012-13.

4.

Learned authorize representative therefore submits that the matter may be restored to the Assessing Officer for completing appropriate assessment to this effect in A/y 2012-13. Learned departmental representative fails to rebut this clinching position. We therefore accept the assessee’s all three substantive grounds for statistical purposes and restore the instant case back to the Assessing Officer to finalize corresponding. assessment in preceding A/y 2012-13 going by sale deed executed on 10-02-2012 as per law within three effective opportunities of hearing.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above term. Order pronounced in the Court on 18 -09-2019 Sd/- Sd/- [ Arjun Lal Sainiy ] [ S.S.Godara ] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated : 18 -09-2019 **PRADIP, Sr. PS Copy of the order forwarded to:

1. 1. Appellant/Assessee: Smt. Shyamali Ray, Flat No. 32, Mukund, 3rd fl., 6/1/3 Queens Park, Kolkata-19.

2. Respondent/Department: The I.T.O., Ward 45(4), 3 Govt Place (west), Kolkata-1. 3.C.I.T(A).- 4. C.I.T.- Kolkata.

5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.

More judgments on Section 54

All 1,745 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →