PUSHPA KHAITAN,HOWRAH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 46, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 179/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 January 2019AY 2011-122 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal declined the assessee's ground regarding the disallowance of set off of brought forward long-term capital gains as it did not arise from the assessment order. The other ground regarding interest was treated as consequential.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2011-12 was dismissed ex parte as no one appeared on their behalf. The appeal was against the CIT(A)'s order confirming a disallowance.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of set off of brought forward long-term capital gains. Whether interest under sections 234A/234B/234C is to be deleted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA

Before: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:- This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Kolkata’s order dated 03.01.2018, passed in case No.08/CIT(A)-14/Wd-47(3)/2015-16, in proceedings u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. The registry has already sent an RPAD notice dated 06.02.2018. She is accordingly proceeded ex parte.

Pushpa Khaitan Vs. ACIT, Cir-46, Kol. Page 2 2. The assessee’s former substantive ground pleads that CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the disallowance of set off of brought forward Long Term Capital Gains from assessment year 2009-10 to the tune of ₹32,131/-. The CIT(A) holds in page 3 that this issue does not arise from the assessment order. The factual position remains the same before us as well. We therefore decline this former substantive ground. The assessee’s latter substantive ground seeking to delete u/s 234A/234B/234C interest amount totaling of ₹6,79,156/- is treated consequential in nature as per CIT(A)’s order that there is no specific grievance in respect of the same.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →