SMT CHHANDA ROY CHOWDHURY,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RG-2, HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-6, Kolkata dated 23.03.2015 for AY 2008-09.

The sole issue involved in this appeal of assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) in upholding the action of AO in computing Long Term Capital Gain relating to assessee’s shares of 74.26% in the property at Rs.1,92,59,340/- before deduction of indexed cost and after arriving at indexed cost of property at Rs.10,25,962/- as assessee’s share. 3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that while dealing with the identical issue in the case of other co-owner of the same property i.e. Shri Sanat Roy Chowdhury in the Tribunal has restored the matter back to the file of AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law vide order dated 03.03.2017, wherein the Tribunal has observed as under: “6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. The issue in the instant case relates to the sale of land but the lower authorities have held that the land was sold along with the building. The learned AR claimed that the assessee in the instant case is the owner of the land only and he has no connection with the building constructed on such land. As per the assessee the building was constructed by the co-owner Mr. Samar Roy Chowdhury. However no documentary evidence was submitted before the lower authorities in support of assessee’s claim. However the assessee has claimed to have filed several documents before the lower authorities which are placed in the paper books. Besides the learned AR has also challenged the valuation made by the lower authorities for the purpose of working out the capital gain under section 50C of the Act. On examination of the order of 2 Smt. Chhanda Roy Chowdhury, AY 2008-09 lower authorities we find that the argument of the assessee that he has no connection with the building either directly or indirectly has not been adjudicated in the absence of documentary evidence. However in our view the lower authorities before reaching to the conclusion should have cross verified the contention of the assessee from Mr. Samar Roy Chowdhury which they failed to do so. Therefore in the interest of Justice and fair play we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee to submit his arguments with documentary evidence to justify his claim. Hence we restore this ground of appeal