Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. I. C. Sudhir, JM And L. P. Sahu, AM Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Asstt. Commissioner of Income Vs Ms. Uma Singal, Tax, Central Circle-13, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-II, New Delhi New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ANRPS7987A Assessee by : Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CA Revenue by : Sh. Ravi Jain, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 24.11.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 24.11.2015 ORDER Per I. C. Sudhir, JM:
This is an appeal by the department against the order dated 19.09.2013 of CIT(A)-1, New Delhi.
The Revenue has questioned First Appellate order on the following grounds:
“1. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in law and facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the Assessing 2 Uma Singal Officer to re-verify the rate of tax on which capital gain shall be charged without appreciating the fact that during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee had not produced any supporting documents to support her contention that the securities sold were the listed securities.” 3. Ground No. 1 is general in nature hence does not need separate adjudication.
Ground No. 2
The AO held that Long Term Capital Gains of Rs. 16,93,379/- on sale of listed securities was to be charged @ 20% and not @ 10%. The ld. CIT(A) has directed the AO to tax the capital gain in the light of his observation in para 5 of the First Appellate order that the securities in question of the companies were listed on the Calcutta Stock Exchange Ltd. and Bombay Stock Exchange respectively.
The grievance of the department as per the ld. CIT DR is that before the Assessing Officer, the assessee had not furnished any evidence in support of his contention that the securities sold (on which Long Term Capital Gains was earned) were listed securities and thus the AO had not accepted the claim of the assessee that the Long Term Capital Gains of Rs. 16,93,379/- be taxed @ 10% instead of 20%. The ld. CIT(A) has however, entertained the evidence filed by the assessee 3 Uma Singal before him that the securities sold were of the companies listed on Calcutta Stock Exchange and Bombay Stock Exchange respectively. Thus, there is violation of Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962 by the ld. CIT(A).
The ld. AR on the other hand objected the contention of the ld. CIT DR that there is violation of Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962 as no such ground has been raised by the Assessing Officer in the present appeal. He however, submitted that the assessee is ready to furnish these documents even before the AO, if it is so directed by the Tribunal to meet the ends of justice.
In view of the above submissions while agreeing with the First Appellate order in principle that if the securities in question are of the listed companies on Calcutta Stock Exchange and Bombay Stock Exchange respectively, then the capital gain is to be taxed accordingly we direct the AO to verify the submission of the assessee that the companies of which securities in question have been sold by the assessee are listed on Calcutta Stock Exchange and Bombay Stock Exchange respectively, after affording opportunities of being heard to the assessee and examining the evidence produced by the assessee in this regard. With this modification we uphold the First Appellate order on this issue. In the result, ground is rejected.
4 Uma Singal 8. The appeal preferred by the department is accordingly dismissed. (Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 24/11/2015)