DEVON PLANTATIONS AND INDUSTRIES LTD., vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITA/251/2018HC KarnatakaKAHC01051063201822 March 2021Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed the orders of the Tribunal, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and Assessing Officer. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The appellant sought to adjust the indexed cost of acquisition for capital gains on the sale of shade trees. The Assessing Officer and Tribunal did not allow this, stating the appellant failed to prove the trees existed before April 1, 1981.

What were the issues?

Whether the appellant was entitled to adjust the indexed cost of acquisition under the second proviso to Section 48 for capital gains on shade trees. Whether the Tribunal's finding regarding the lack of evidence for the trees' existence prior to 01.04.1981 was perverse.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 48

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2021

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

I.T.A. NO.251 OF 2018 BETWEEN:

DEVON PLANTATIONS AND INDUSTRIES LTD., NO.29, EMPIRE INFANTRY INFANTRY ROAD, SHIVAJI NAGAR BENGALURU-560001 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MS. ROSHIN VARGHESE. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. THOMAS VELLAPALLY, ADV.,)

AND:

1.

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CIRCLE 11(1), C.R. BUILDING

QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

2.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD

BENGALURU-560001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.,)

- - - THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 17.11.2017 PASSED IN ITA NO.1943/BANG/2016 (ANNEXURE-E), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE

SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 'C' BENCH, BANGALORE, PRONOUNCED ON 17.11.2017 IN ITA NO.1943/BANG/2016 (ANNEXURE-E) TO THE EXTENT QUESTIONED HEREIN. PASS SUCH OTHER OR FURTHER ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been filed against the common order dated 17.11.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 2. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 09.11.2018 on the following substantial questions of law: “(i) Whether the appellant was entitled to adjust the indexed cost of acquisition

under the second proviso to Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, while computing capital gains on the sale of shade trees during the assessment year 2010-11? 2. Whether the findings of the Tribunal “that it was incumbent on the appellant to allege during the assessment proceedings that the trees which were now sold were in existence prior to 01.04.1981” and “no such material / evidence was brought on record before the Tribunal or the lower authorities” is perverse, contrary to the record and illegal?"

3.

For the reasons assigned by us in the judgment passed in I.T.A.No.247/2018, the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal / Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as by the Assessing Officer are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the Assessing Officer to make a fresh assessment again.

4.

It is needless to state that it will be open for the parties to raise all the contentions as are admissible in

law. Therefore, it is not necessary for us to answer the substantial questions of law framed in this appeal. In the result, the appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid direction.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

More judgments on Section 48

All 1,457 judgments and leading authorities on Section 48 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →