What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to re-examine the claims for cost of acquisition and brokerage paid, allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The assessee appealed an order regarding the computation of capital gains on property sale. The primary issue was the disallowance of the cost of acquisition, with an additional ground raised for brokerage deduction.

What were the issues?

The key issues were the correct computation of capital gains by allowing the cost of acquisition and brokerage paid as deductions.

Rahul C. Chheda vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya

For Respondent: Shri J. Saravanan &, Shri Rajeev Gubgotra

Hearing: 15/03/2019Pronounced: 15/03/2019

PER G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT :

The captioned appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A)-30, Mumbai dated 21.12.2015, pertaining to the Assessment Year 2011-12, which in turn has arisen from the order dated 18.03.2014 passed by the Assessing Officer, Mumbai under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

The learned representative explained that the only issue in this appeal relates to the manner of computation of Capital Gains on sale of property. In the Memo of Appeal filed, the only issue raised is with regard to the action of the lower authorities in disallowing the cost of acquisition of property while computing the Capital Gains. At the time of hearing, the learned representative also filed an Additional Ground of appeal claiming that the brokerage paid of ` 1 lac for sale of property also was to be allowed as a deduction while computing the Capital Gains.

3. At the outset, the learned representative submitted that assessee would be satisfied if the matter is remanded back to the file of Assessing Officer. Explaining the background, the learned representative stated that in the course of proceedings before the lower authorities, claim of deduction for cost of acquisition was not adequately put up inasmuch as the relevant documents justifying the claim were not appropriately filed. In any case, it is pointed out that assessee has a good case on the basis of material on record.

The ld. DR appearing for the Revenue has no objection for remitting the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for examination afresh with regard to the claim of deduction for cost of acquisition as well as for the brokerage paid. Considering the aforesaid, we set-aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for examination afresh. Needless to mention, the Assessing Officer shall allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and thereafter shall pass an order afresh, as per law.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 15th March, 2019.

RAHUL C. CHHEDA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(2)(1), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Latest GST High Court judgments