RAJNI KHANDUJA PARTNER-M.P SEED CROPS SORPN,GWALIOR vs. ITO 2(2), GWALIOR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 96/AGR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 February 2025AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found a lack of clarity regarding the exact date of the sale deed execution in the orders of the lower authorities and the sale document itself. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to re-examine the facts and investigate the precise date of the sale deed.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed no transfer of capital asset occurred in FY 2012-13, stating the sale deed was executed on 10.06.2013. However, lower authorities held the transfer occurred on 21.03.2013.

What were the issues?

The key issue was determining the correct date of transfer of a capital asset for the purpose of capital gains taxation, specifically whether it occurred within the relevant financial year.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(47),Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

Hearing: 13.02.2025Pronounced: 13.02.2025

ORDER

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)-NFAC”],Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060925572(1) dated 14.02.2024, involving proceedings under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

It transpires during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have held the assessee/co-owner to have transferred relevant capital asset in financial year 2012-13, i.e., on 21.03.2013 as against his stand that no transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) had taken place on the said date since the sale deed stood executed amongst the parties on 10.06.2013 only. Faced with this situation, learned counsel has referred to relevant sale deed’s clauses that its one of the co-owner, who had appeared and presented the said document in the month of March, 2013 and therefore, the mentioned sale deed ought to have been held to be executed after the relevant accounting period ending on 31.03.2013, i.e. on 10.06.2013 in the preceding terms.. We find that there is no clarity on facts in the orders of the learned lower authorities or in the sale document, as the case may be, to this effect.

That being the case, we deem it appropriate to direct the learned Assessing Officer to re-examine the entire facts and carry out detailed investigation regarding exact date of sale deed after getting report from the Sub-registrar’s office. The assessee shall indeed be entitled to plead and prove all the facts which shall be examined as per law. It is also directed that matter shall be resolved within three effective opportunities. 2 | P a g e

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 13THFebruary, 2025.

More judgments on Section 2(47)

All 851 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(47) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →