AMARENDRA KUMAR PAL,PASCHIM MEDINIPORE vs. I.T.O.,WARD-38(3), MEDINIPORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1694/KOL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 December 2019AY 2014-152 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO should obtain a valuation report from the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) to determine the cost of acquisition for LTCG. The AO was directed to compute the LTCG after considering the DVO's report and the assessee's objections.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed that the cost of acquisition for Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) should be based on the value of the property as on 01.04.1981, considering it was gifted in 1965 and became full owner in 1985. The Assessing Officer (AO) did not grant this benefit.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit of cost inflation index on the value of the gifted property as on 01.04.1981 for the computation of LTCG.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Not explicitly mentioned, but relates to computation of capital gains.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B(SMC

Before: Shri A. T. Varkey, JM]

Hearing: 28.11.2019Pronounced: 31.12.2019

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-11, Kolkata dated 18-04-2019 for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the determination of Long Term Capital Gains at Rs.23,93,079/- made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is wrong, uncalled for and otherwise excessive.

2. For that the AO ought to have considered the fact that the appellant along with his two brothers having received the gift of the property earlier in the year 1965 from his father and as per family settlement having become the owner of the property in the year 1985 was entitled to the benefit of cost inflation index on the value as on 01.04.1981 which the AO ought to have taken note of and determined the assessable Long Term Capital Gain accordingly.”

3. From the perusal of ground no. 2 it is clear that the main grievance of assessee is that while computing the Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG), the cost of acquisition of the property should be taken as on 05.03.1965, since the assessee along with his two brothers have received the gift of the property earlier in the year of 1965 from his father and as per family settlement having become the owner of the property in the year 1985 was entitled to the benefit of cost inflation index on the value as on 01.04.1981. According to assessee, the AO has not given this benefit of cost inflation index on the value as on 01.04.1981. Therefore, the assessee pleads that the AO ought to have called for the valuation of the property from the DVO and thereafter only after considering his report as well as the objection of the assessee should have decided the case as held by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Amarendra Kr. Pal, AY- 2014-15 Court in the case of Sunil Kr. Agarwal Vs. CIT, Siliguri, GA No. 3686 of 2013 ITAT No.221 of 2013 dated 13.03.2014. I note that the assessee has obtained valuation report of the land in question from Shri Manoj Kumar Sen a consulting Engineer and approved valuer, [a copy of which is placed before me] and the prayer of the assessee is that for the purpose of calculation of Long Term Capital Gains in respect of the properties sold by him since have been given as gift to him as well as his brother from 05.03.1965 and became a full owner since 04.02.1985, the AO may be directed to call for the DVO’s report as held by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Sunil Kumar Agarwal (supra) and determine LTCG which we direct the AO to do so. Therefore, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to call for the DVO’s report and, thereafter compute the LTCG in accordance to law.

4.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open court on 31st December, 2019.

Sd/- (Aby. T. Varkey) Judicial Member Jd.(Sr.P.S.)

Dated :31st December, 2019 Copy of the order forwarded to:

1.

Appellant – Shri Amarendra Kumar Pal, Village Konnagar, Ghatal, Dist. Paschim Medinipore, West Bengal-721212 Respondent – Income-tax Officer, Ward-38(3), Kolkata. 2 3. CIT(A)-11 , Kolkata (sent through e-mail)

4. CIT- , Kolkata.

5.

DR, ITAT, Kolkata. (sent through e-mail)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →