Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH: KOLKATA
Before: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, JM & Shri M. Balaganesh, AM]
ORDER
Per Shri Balaganesh, AM:
This appeal by assessee is arising out of order of CIT(A)-XXXVI, Kolkata vide Appeal No. 634/CIT(A)-XXXVI/Kol/10-11/690 dated 26.07.2013. Intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) was issued by ACIT, Cir-45 (Admn) vide dated 07.02.2011.
The assessee has raised following grounds: “
1. For that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was wholly wrong and unjustified in confirming the A.O's action in enhancing the income under the head" Long Term Capital Gain" earned during the year under appeal i.e A.Y 2009-10 in the Intimation U/S 143(1) of the Act by a sum of Rs.19,97,050/- ( r/o) without assigning any reason for making such enhancement by the A.O and confirmation of the same in appeal ( assessed figure Rs.l ,64,20,396/- Less returned figure Rs.1 ,44,23,343/-, both the assessed and returned figures of L.T.C.G are prior to setting off B/F long term capital loss of Rs. 87,656/- for the preceding A. Y 2008-09 ). The actions of the A.O and the Ld. CIT(A) were wholly unreasonable, uncalled for and bad in law.
2. For that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CITCA) was wholly wrong and unjustified in confirming the A.O's action in the consequential enhancement of the total income in the said Intimation U/S 143(1) by the said sum of Rs.19,97,050/- without assigning any reason for making such enhancement by the A.O and confirmation of the same in appeal ( assessed total income Rs.2,23,42,890/- Less returned total income Rs.2,03,45,840/- ). The actions of the A.O and the Ld. CIT(A) were wholly unreasonable, uncalled for and bad in law.”
2 Late Satyabahma Salarpuria AY 2009-10 3. Brief facts of the issue are that the return of income was filed by the assessee for AY 2009-10 on 13.07.2009 declaring taxable income of Rs.2,03,45,840/- which included Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) of Rs.1,44,23,343/-. The assessee computed LTCG which is annexed to this order as separate sheet.
The assessment was completed u/s. 143(1) of the Act by the Ld. AO at Rs.2,23,42,890/- which included LTCG of Rs.1,63,32,740/- which admittedly was arrived at , without giving deduction towards indexed cost of acquisition of shares of SBI amounting to Rs.19,97,053/- and set off of Brought Forward loss of Rs.87,656/-.
On first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) reproduced the e-filed return of the assessee in his order and mentioned the LTCG figure at Rs.1,64,20,396/- and upheld the intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act to be correct. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR filed the full set of e-filed return for AY 2009-10 and took us to the relevant portion of the LTCG figure disclosed in the said return.
We have heard rival submissions and gone through the material available on record. We find that both the Learned AR and Learned DR fairly agreed for ascertaining of real facts by the Learned AO with regard to the disclosure of LTCG by the assessee from the electronically filed return of income. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances, we deem it fit and appropriate in the interest of justice and fair play to set aside this issue to the file of the Ld. AO to have a revisit on the impugned issue afresh, by verification of the figures of LTCG in the return vis a vis the workings of the assessee and dispose the issue in accordance with law. Needless to mention that, the assessee should be given reasonable opportunity of being heard.
In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.