Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
आदेश/Order
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The captioned appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the separate orders of Pr. the Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla
ITA Nos.654 & 655Chd/2018 Sh. Raj Kamal Gandhi, Shimla 2
[hereinafter referred to as ‘PCIT’] and Commissioner of Income Tax
[hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’ ] respectively.
First, we shall take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA
No.655/Chd/2018.
ITA No.655/Chd/2018
In this appeal, the assessee has agitated the action of the Principal
Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla against the exercise of his
revisionary powers u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the
Act') and thereby passing the impugned order.
At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the
sole issue involved in the present case is relating to computation of ‘long
term capital gain’ on the sale of industrial plot which was purchased by the
assessee in the year 1976 and sold during the assessment year under
consideration. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention
to the original assessment order dated 24.12.2010 to show that the return
was selected for scrutiny only for investigation on the above issue of
computation of Long Term Capital Gain, wherein, during the assessment
proceedings the assessee has submitted the entire record to show that the
assessee had claimed cost of indexation in respect of land only and not in
respect of the building which, according to assessee, was already
demolished / damaged / having no value, at the time of the aforesaid sale
of the plot. The issue was thoroughly examined by the Assessing officer
and the capital gain returned by the assessee was accepted as such.
Thereafter, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee for
ITA Nos.654 & 655Chd/2018 Sh. Raj Kamal Gandhi, Shimla 3
initiation of re-assessment proceedings on the same issue. However, after
verifying the record, the assessment u/s 147 read with section 143(3) of the
Act was completed as such without any change or addition. Thereafter,
doubting the assessment on the same issue, the Ld. PCIT has exercised his
revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. The assessee had submitted the
details before the PCIT, however, the Ld. PCIT was of the view that the
Assessing officer in the assessment proceedings had not properly
examined the issue as to the written down value (WDV) claimed by the
assessee in respect of the building. He, therefore, directed the Assessing
officer to make a fresh assessment on this issue.
Aggrieved by the above direction of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee
has come in appeal before us.
We have considered the rival contentions. Admittedly, the assessee
has not claimed the cost of indexation on the building. The assessee has
claimed the cost of indexation in respect of land only. As per the
provisions of the Income-tax Act, no depreciation is allowable in respect
of land, hence, there was no question of claiming the same in earlier years.
Under the circumstances, in our view, when the issue has already been
examined not only during the assessment proceedings carried out u/s
143(3) of the Act and subsequently re-assessment carried out u/s 147 read
with section 143(3) of the Act, no useful purpose will be served in
reexamining the same issue again, rather, it will only result into
multiplicity of the litigation and unnecessary harassment to the assessee.
We do not find any justification on the part of the Ld. PCIT for exercising
ITA Nos.654 & 655Chd/2018 Sh. Raj Kamal Gandhi, Shimla 4
the revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act in this case. The order passed
u/s 263 of the Act in this is, therefore, quashed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed.
ITA No. 654/Chd/2018
In this appeal, the assessee has agitated the action of the CIT(A) in
confirming the addition of Rs. 1.50 lacs made u/s 68 of the Income Tax
Act on account of unexplained cash credit found in the bank account of
the assessee.
We have heard the rival contentions. The assessee before the
Assessing officer claimed that the said amount was out of sale proceeds of
scrap. However, the assessee could not furnish any reliable evidence in this
respect. The Assessing officer, therefore, treated the aforesaid deposits as
unexplained income of the assessee and made the impugned addition u/s 68
of the Act.
Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee changed his stand and claimed
that the aforesaid deposit was out of advance money received on account
of sale of industrial plot. This was a totally a different plea taken by the
assessee which seemed to be an after-thought version. Therefore, the Ld.
CIT(A) rejected the aforesaid contention of the assessee.
Before us, the assessee could not produce any reliable evidence to
show that the said deposit was out of the advance money received from the
sale of the plot. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of
the CIT(A) in making the impugned addition.
This appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed.
ITA Nos.654 & 655Chd/2018 Sh. Raj Kamal Gandhi, Shimla 5
In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 655/Chd/2018 is allowed, whereas, the appeal in ITA No. 654//Chd/2018 stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 26.11.2018.
Sd/- Sd/- ( बी , आर . आर . कुमार / B.R.R. KUMAR) (संजय गग� / SANJAY GARG ) लेखा सद�य/ Accountant Member �या�यक सद�य /Judicial Member
Dated : 26.11.2018 “आर.के.”
आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य आ�धकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar