PUSHPAVATHI MARDIA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

These two appeals are filed by the Assessee directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai, (in short ‘CIT(A)’) dated 08.03.2016 for the Assessment Year 2009-10. Since common issues involved in these two appeals, we heard both the appeals together and disposing the same by this common order. of 2016 2. The brief facts of the case are as under: The appellant is an individual and not filed her return of income for the assessment year 2009-10. The Income Tax Officer, B W IX(3), Chennai (hereinafter referred as ‘AO') based on receipt of information that the appellant sold a property at Erukancheri High Road, Chennai along with Shri K L Mardia for consideration of Rs.66 lakhs whose guideline value for the stamp duty was Rs.1,05,07,000/- as on 02.06.2008, issued notice U/s.148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), in response to which the appellant filed return of income on 28.08.2012 declaring total income of Rs.16,730/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the AO vide order dated 27.03.2013 U/s.143(3) of the Act at total income of Rs.22,08,667/-. While doing so, the AO brought to tax the Long Term Capital Gains arising on sale of land at Erukancheri High Road.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred before Ld.CIT(A), who vide impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal.

The Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the property which was sold belongs to Shri K.L. Mardia in terms of clause 13, 14 of Partnership Dissolution Deed dated 01.04.2000. The AO without considering the facts of the case properly had assessed 50% of the sale proceeds in the hands of the appellant. The Ld.AR submitted that the matter may be sent back to the file of AO for denova assessment in accordance with law. The senior DR had no serious objection.

Considering the submissions made by the Ld.AR on behalf of the assessee, we remand the matter back to the file of AO for denovo assessment in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The AO shall consider clause 13 & 14 of the Partnership Dissolution Deed dated 01.04.2000 while making the assessment. Accordingly the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

This is an appeal filed against the order of order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai, (in short ‘CIT(A)’) dated 08.03.2016, passed U/s.154 of the Act. Since the issue involved is remanded back in the present appeal becomes infructuous and hence dismissed as infructuous.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in is partly allowed for statistical purposes and in is dismissed.