Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL
Assessee by Shri Bimlendu Bhushan Revenue by Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing 02.01.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date of Pronouncement 06.01.2025 आदेश / ORDER
PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 29.12.2016, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(A)’), for the assessment year 2010-11.
All the grounds raised
by the assessee are interrelated and interconnected and relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming and upholding the additions made
2. Narotam Manji Patel, Mumbai by AO. Therefore we have decided to dispose off these grounds through the present consolidated order.
At the very outset, it is submitted by Ld. AR that as per order of assessment dated 30.03.2016, the total income of the assessee was computed thereby making addition under the head business income on the ground that assesee along with other co-owners had transferred lands mentioned in the order of assessment to corporate entities.
Whereas it is a specific stand of the assessee that assessee along with other co-owners had not received any consideration in cash or kind while transferring the lands during the year under consideration. It is also submitted that all the transfers were challenged before the Hon’ble Civil Court. But, without waiting for the decision of Hon’ble Civil Court the AO made addition which was upheld by Hon’ble CIT(A) as well.
It is argued that now Hon’ble Civil Court in Special Civil Suit No. 46/19 passed order dated 15.12.2021 in favour of the assessee and other co-owners thereby cancelling all the sale deeds which proves that assessee had not received any consideration.
On the other hand, the Ld.DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities.
3 Narotam Manji Patel, Mumbai
After having heard counsels for both the parties and perusing the material placed on record and orders passed by the revenue authorities, we find that order of assessment and that of Ld. CIT(A) were passed on 30.03.2016 & 29.12.2016 respectively. Whereas the order of Hon’ble Civil Court has been passed subsequently i.e on 15.12.2021 and thus this development being the subsequent event was not available before the lower authorities at the time of dealing with the issue. Apart from the above our attention is also drawn to the fact that the case of other co-owners i.e Manji Banji Patel and Laxmiben Manji Patel have already been restored back to the file of AO for passing afresh orders in & 1239/Mum/2017 respectively.
8. Therefore taking into consideration all the facts narrated by us above, we are of the view that the matter needs to be re-verified and re-adjudicated by the AO after considering the factual position and also taking into consideration the subsequent events i.e the orders passed by the Civil Court dated 15.12.2021 and we therefore restore the issue back to the file of AO to decide the matter afresh considering the submissions of both the parties.
Needless to say that the AO shall grant reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to produce relevant documents 4 Narotam Manji Patel, Mumbai before the Ld.AO, thus grounds raised by the assessee in the present appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes with no order to costs.