Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “J” BENCH, MUMBAI
O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of CIT (A)-30, Mumbai in appeal No. CIT (A)-30/ITO-19(2)(3)/685/14-15 dated 23-02-2016. The Assessment was framed by ITO ward-19(2)(3), Mumbai for the A.Y. 2012-13 vide order dated 30-01-2015 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).
The only common issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO in not acknowledging the Will of assessee’s grandmother Smt. Dhankunvar Praji Tanna, by virtue of which it received jewellery and which was sold and earned long term capital gain. The AO made addition under section 68 of the Act of sale consideration and consequently disallowed the claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act. For this assessee has raised following ground: - “The Honourable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 32,00,952/- u/s. 68 of the l.T Act made by the AO without considering the facts and merit of the case.
The Honourable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has also erred in confirming the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s. 54F of Rs.
Smt. Meghna Vishal Trivedi (2012-13) (In )
17,58,631/- being Long Term Capital Gain earned on sale of jewellery without considering the fact and merits of the case.
The Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) has also erred in not accepting the will, prepared by advocate I solicitor - Rashmi V Doshi as acknowledged on the WILL as witness towards transferring the right of jewellery in favour of the appellant from grandmother Late Smt. Dhankunvar Pragji Tanna without confirming with the transaction related parties and considering the facts and merits of the case.
The Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) has also erred in not accepting the explanations, documents submitted during appeal proceedings as evidentiary value without understanding the merits and value of the said documents.”
At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee filed an application under rule 29 of the appellate Tribunals Rules for admission of additional evidences which are filed in paper book 2 consisting of affidavits of advocate and solicitor Rashmi V. Doshi and affidavit of Manubhai P. Tanna, one of the witnesses of the Will. These additional evidences were filed by the assessee for the reason that the assessee has sold certain jewellery which was inherited by her from her grandmother late Mrs. Dhankunvar Pragji Tanna. The AO as well as CIT(A) doubted the Will and to support this the assessee has filed these additional evidences. Admittedly, the learned Counsel for the assessee admitted that this Will is neither register nor any probate is done. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR objected for admission of additional evidences.
After hearing both the sides and going through the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that these evidences are vital for deciding the issue whether the Will is genuine or not, which will decide the issue of acquiring of this jewellery by the assessee from her late grandmother. In the interest of justice, we admit these additional evidences and remand the matter back to the file of the AO for verifying these evidences to prove the authenticity of the Will. Hence, orders of the lower authorities are set aside and matter is remanded back to the file of the AO.
Smt. Meghna Vishal Trivedi (2012-13) (In )
Needless to say, the issue is open and AO will frame the assessment de novo. Appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 15-02-2017.