Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E”, BENCH MUMBAI
Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM Smt. Simranpal Kaur,
आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M):
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)- 27, Mumbai dated 28/01/2015 for A.Y.2005-06 in the matter of order passed u/s.263 of the IT Act.
Nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee inspite of giving opportunity. Even on earlier two occasions i.e., on 16/02/2017 and 05/07/2017, the appeal was fixed and notice was issued through RPAD, however, nobody appeared on behalf of assessee nor any adjournment petition was filed. The Bench therefore, decided to dispose the appeal after hearing learned DR and considering the material placed on record.
Smt. Simranpal Kaur 3. We have heard learned DR and gone through the orders of the authorities below. Facts in brief are that Return of income was filed on 26/03/2007 declaring the total income at Rs. 3,69,417/-. Thereafter , the case was reopened after recording the reasons and accordingly order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 was passed on 28.03.2013 at Rs. 1,89,40,900/- after adding an amount of Rs. 1,13,00,730/- under the head ' Long Term Capital Gain' and Rs. 75,45,421/- under the head income from other source'. In the assessment order, the assessing officer has computed the capital gain in respect of the compensation received from Amritsar Improvement Board of Rs. 1,42,74,606/-. After giving the indexation benefits the total capital gain workout to Rs.1,13,00,730/- and the same was added to the total income of the assessee. After verification of the assessment records CIT observed that the assessee has received Compensations from Amritsar Improvement Board on two occasions viz., Rs. 1,42,74,606/- on 28.05.2004 and Rs. 74,45,421/- on 24.01.2005. The assessing officer has calculated the capital gain on 1,42,74,606/- only and failed to tax the another amount received of Rs. 74,45,421/- on 24.01.2005. These facts were not verified by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment.
In view of the above facts, notice u/s. 263 of the I.T. Act 1961 was issued to the assessee on 03.12.2014 as the order passed by AO was found to be erroneous & prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
After considering assessee’s contention, the CIT(A) found that order passed by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the