SMT. KASHMIRA MODI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-21(2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2107/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 April 2019AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the ground of appeal related to natural justice and the AO's adherence to JCIT directions under Section 144A. Consequently, the appellate order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s confirmation of capital gains tax on a redevelopment agreement and the denial of exemption under Section 54. A key issue was the CIT(A)'s failure to adjudicate the ground of appeal concerning the AO following JCIT directions under Section 144A without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate a ground of appeal concerning natural justice and the AO's compliance with Section 144A directions. Whether capital gains accrued on a redevelopment agreement and if Section 54 exemption was rightly denied.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144A,Section 54,Section 50C,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendra Shah, AR
For Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, DR
Hearing: 25/01/2019Pronounced: 12/04/2019

ORDER

PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2014-15. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax-33, Mumbai [in short ‘CIT(A)’] and arises out of the assessment completed u/s 143(3)(ii) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (the ‘Act’).

2.

The grounds of appeal

filed by the assessee read as under:

1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming and holding that the capital gain has accrued on entering into Kashmira Modi No. 11 on 04/04/2013 registered on 05.04.2014 as exchange liable to transfer.

2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming and holding that the capital gain has accrued on entering into redevelopment agreement in respect of flat No. 11 owned by the appellant.

3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of exemption u/s 54 in respect of flat no. 7. a. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming and incorrect adoption of pro-rata value of flat no. 11 amounting to Rs.6,20,60,880/- while calculating the sale value of flat no. 11 by a method which is nowhere prescribed under the law. b. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in overlooking Stamp Duty Valuation of redevelopment agreement in respect of flat No. 11 while calculating the value of flat NO. 1102/02 which ought to have been followed. c. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in overlooking Stamp Duty Valuation of redevelopment agreement in respect of flat No. 11 comprises of leasehold land and construction cost and therefore section 50C could not be applied to leasehold land as per various judgments of various authorities. d. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the assessment order in which the Assessing Officer followed directions of JCIT u/s 144A without providing opportunity to the appellant to rebut the directions of JCIT u/s 144A.

4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in confirming in making enhancement of Rs.1,12,54,187/- towards amount received from developers as Short Term Capital Gain although the same is against 3 orders of Mumbai ITAT.

More judgments on Section 144A

All 176 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →