ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH. MALVINDER SINGH GREWAL, RAMPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5892/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 November 2017AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal recalled its earlier order to decide a specific ground. It held that since the CIT(A) admitted new documents without giving the AO an opportunity to be heard, the issue needed to be restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 11,66,295/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on a property where the assessee had a 1/6th share. The CIT(A) directed the AO to allow exemption under Section 54 of the Act, considering the indexed cost of acquisition.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in admitting new documents and granting exemption under Section 54 without providing the AO an adequate opportunity to be heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’ : NEW DELHI

Before: HON’BLE, SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL & SHRI KULDIP SINGH

For Appellant: Shri G.N. Gupta, AR, Smt. Ashima Neb, Senior DR
For Respondent: Smt. Ashima Neb, Senior DR
Hearing: 12.04.2019

(PAN : ACZPG2829C) (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri G.N. Gupta, AR APPLICANT/REVENUE BY : Smt. Ashima Neb, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 12.04.2019 Date of Order : 14.05.2019 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : Vide order of even date passed in Misc. Application No.37/Del/2018, order dated 08.11.2017 is recalled for limited purpose so as to decide ground no.3, which is as under :-

“Deleting the addition of Rs.11,66,295/- made on account of LTC Gain as the assessee is not entitled for exemption u/s 54 of the Act.” 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.11,66,295/- under head ‘Long Term Capital Gain’ (LTCG) qua the property situated at HIDE Market, Hussaipura, West Amritsar acquired by Smt. Roop Kaur, Grand Mother of the assessee and the assessee has become owner of the same to the extent of 1/6th share. Ld. CIT (A) directed the AO to allow the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) by considering the indexed cost of acquisition calculated by the assessee. Now, the Revenue has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the appeal challenging the addition of deletion made by the AO.

3.

We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case.

4.

Bare perusal of the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) goes to prove that he has entertained plethora of documents qua the controversy at hand, as referred in para 4 of the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) viz. property was duly acquired by the grandmother of the assessee in 1964, Will executed by Smt. Roop Kaur dated 01.04.1981 in favour of the assessee u/s 46A of the Act without providing an opportunity of being heard to the AO. Since the Revenue has specifically challenged the admission of documents by the ld. CIT(A) in appellate proceedings by way of raising ground no.1, adequate opportunity of being heard is required to be provided to the AO. Consequently, since the issue in controversy requires fresh appreciation of documents relied upon by the assessee, which have never been seen by the AO during assessment proceedings, this issue is also ordered to be restored to the AO to decide afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed on this issue also for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on this 14th day of May, 2019.

More judgments on Section 54

All 1,745 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →