Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’ : NEW DELHI
Before: HON’BLE, SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL & SHRI KULDIP SINGH
(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.
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.
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.