DR. SYED ANWAR,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 404/BANG/2016Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 December 2016AY 2007-086 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the issue on its merits rather than rejecting it solely because it was not in the original return. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a long-term capital loss, but the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) denied it because the claim was not made in the original return of income. The assessee argued that appellate authorities can consider claims not made in the return.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not deciding the claim of long-term capital loss on merits when it was not originally filed. Whether the assessee is entitled to set off the long-term capital loss.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 70,Section 250,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH ‘C’, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI A. K. GARODIA & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

For Respondent: Shri M.K.Biju, JCIT

This is assessee’s appeal directed against the order of the ld.CIT(A)-5, Bangalore dated 31-12-2015 for assessment year 2007-08.

2.

The grounds raised by the assessee are as under;

“1. The impugned order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 5, Bengaluru is liable to set aside in so far as it is incorrect, improper, irregular, opposed to facts and circumstances of the case and opposed to the law.

2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the act of the Assessing Officer in denying to compute the Long Term Capital Loss arising on sale of 47 Acres 14 Guntas of Lands, of which the Appellant is held to be the owner by the Hon'ble ITAT, Bengaluru.

3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding that the Appellant did not make statutory claim of Long Term Capital Loss of RS.42,07,797/- in his Return of Income and that he is not entitled for the benefit set off of the same.

4. The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the act of the Assessing Officer denying the benefit of Long Term Capital Loss set off u/s 70 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 disregarding the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Bengaluru "C" Bench in to 170/Bang/2012/A.Y.2007-08 in the case of the land owners viz., Mr. Syed Shafiulla; Mr. Syed Khaleelulla and Mr. Syed Amanulla.

5. The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the act of the Assessing Officer denying the benefit of Long Term Capital Loss set off u/s 70 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 disregarding the facts and circumstances of the case and refusing to exercise the powers vested in him u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

6. The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in dismissing the grounds of appeal on the allowability of the Capital Loss in the hands of the appellant with complete disregard to scheme of the Income Tax Act.

7.

The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in not adjudicating on the Ground Nos. (5) to (6) regarding the impugned levy interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C in all aggregating to Rs.2,79,392/-. .

RELIEF CLAIMED: In view of the grounds herein urged and of those which may be urged at the time of hearing, the Appellant prays that the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal may please:

1.direct the Respondent to allow deduction of Long Term Capital Loss of RS.42,07,797/-;

2.set aside the impugned levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act; and 3.to grant such other relief as the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal may deem fit to meet the ends of natural justice.

3.

It is submitted by the ld. AR of the assessee that the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the assessment order on this basis that since the assessee has not made the claim regarding capital loss in the return of income, such claim made by the assessee in course of assessment proceedings is not allowable. He submitted that as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of M/s Goetze India Ltd vs.

CIT as reported in 284 ITR 323, the embargo is on the AO but not on appellate authorities being the CIT(A) or the Tribunal. He submitted that the CIT(A) should have decided the issue on merit.

4.

The ld. DR of the revenue supported the orders of the authorities below.

5.

We have considered rival submissions. We find force in the submissions of the ld. AR of the assessee that the ld. CIT(A) should have decided the issue on merit instead of saying that the claim raised by the assessee in course of assessment proceedings is not allowable because the same was not raised in the return of income. Hence, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh decision on merit regarding the claim of the assessee in respect of long term capital loss of Rs.42,07,797/- after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

More judgments on Section 70

All 295 judgments and leading authorities on Section 70 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →