MICRON BUILDERS,VASHI vs. ITO 28(2)(1), VASHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not appeared before the AO and Ld.CIT(A). However, considering the circumstances, including the COVID period, and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the appeal back to the AO. The AO was directed to decide the issue raised by the assessee on merits after providing a proper opportunity of being heard.
What were the facts?
The appeal was filed by the assessee against an order passed by the NFAC/Ld.CIT(A) for AY 2015-16. The assessee claimed that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in treating the conveyance of land and building as a sale of property and assessed the aggregate sale consideration as capital gains. The assessee also argued that this amount was already considered as 'Sales' under Business Income for AY 2012-13 & AY 2013-14, leading to double taxation.
What were the issues?
Whether the aggregate sale consideration of units in a building should be treated as capital gains or if it was already accounted for as business income, leading to double taxation. The Tribunal also considered the assessee's non-appearance and the Ld.CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal on this ground.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Capital Gains, Business Income
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR
Present for: Assessee by : Shri Shashank Mehta Revenue by : Shri R. R. Makwana, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing : 14.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 22.11.2024 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai, JM: Present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of order dated 31/07/2024 passed by NFAC Delhi/Ld.CIT(A) for assessment year 2015-16 on following grounds of appeal: 1. “The Ld. CIT (A) has completed the appellate proceedings without considering the facts and circumstances of the case, which is contrary to the law and is also against the principles of natural justice.
2. Addition of Rs. 7,44,08,070
2. At the outset, it is submitted that assessee has not appeared before the Ld.AO as well as before the Ld.CIT(A). It is noted that the proceedings before the authorities below took placed during the covid period and have obvious reason assessee could not have made proper representation of its case.
3. Before the Ld.CIT(A), we noted that the last three notices were issued post Covid period, however, no compliances were made by the assessee. The Ld.AR submitted that in the interest of justice, the issue may be remanded to the authorities below for considering the contentions based on evidences.
The Ld.DR though did not support the submissions of the Ld.AR, however, was of the opinion that proper verification of the Accordingly the grounds raised by the assessee stands allowed. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22-11-2024.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
