Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN & AMARJIT SINGH
आदेश / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:
The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order dated 20.02.2013 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the learned “CIT(A)”] relevant to the assessment year 2009-10.
The assessee has raised the following grounds before us:
(1) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting appellant's application under Rule 46A for admission of additional evidence.
Assessment Year: 2009-10 (2) Reasons given by the CIT(A) for rejecting appellant's application under Rule 46A for admission of additional evidence, are wrong insufficient and contrary to the facts and evidence on record.
(3) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the A. O. of taxing the capital gain of Rs.55,77,500/-on sale of the property by a partnership firm M/s. Hotel Delhi Darbar in the hands of the appellant by treating the appellant as the owner/benamidar.
(4) Reasons given by the CIT(A) for confirming the action of the A.O. of taxing the capital gain of Rs.55,77,500/- on sale of the property by a partnership firm M/s. Hotel Delhi Darbar in the hands of the appellant by treating the appellant as the owner/benamidar, are wrong insufficient and contrary to the facts and evidence on record.
(5) Without prejudice to above grounds, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. as well as the learned CIT(A) erred in not referring the matter for valuation of the property as contemplated by section 50C(2) of the I T. Act and thereby erred in taking sale consideration at Rs.57,23,000/- as against agreement value of Rs. 35,00,000/- (6) Without prejudice to the above grounds, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A. O. as well as learned CIT(A) failed to take into consideration the cost of the land and structure for the purpose of indexation while computing the capital gains.
(7) Without prejudice to above grounds, reasons given by the A. O. as well as by the learned CIT(A) for not considering the cost of the land and structure for the purpose of indexation while computing the capital gains, are wrong, insufficient and contrary to the facts and evidence on record.
(8) Without prejudice to the above grounds, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the A. O. As well as the learned CIT(A) failed to take into consideration the appellant's claim of deduction of Rs.22,48,196/- u/s. 54F of I T Act, being the market value of the flat-purchased by the appellant.
Assessment Year: 2009-10 (9) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the A.O. of estimating the income from newly purchased house property at Rs.1,07,880/-. (10) Reasons given by the learned CIT(A) for confirming the action of the A.O. of estimating the income from newly purchased house property at Rs.1,07,880/-,are wrong, insufficient and contrary to the facts and evidence on record.
2. The assessee filed the return of income on 28.10.2009 declaring a total income of Rs.1,72,410/-. The returns was selected for scrutiny through Computer Assisted Scrutiny System(CASS) and accordingly notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961( in short “the Act”) were issued and duly served upon the assessee. The assessee was found to sale the property to the tune of Rs.55,77,500/- therefore, the said sale consideration was added to his income and was brought to tax. The assessee took the plea that he was not the owner in possession of the partnership firm M/s.Hotel Delhi Darbar. Infact six others were the partners whose name have been mentioned in the partnership deed. Therefore, the said amount to the tune of Rs.55,77,000/- has wrongly been added to the income of the assessee and brought to tax. The assessee filed an appeal as well as application under 46A of Income Tax Rules 1962 for production additional evidence which was also rejected by the learned CIT(A) therefore, the present appeal has been filed before us.
We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned representative of the parties and have gone through the record carefully. We notice that the learned CIT(A) has refused to accept additional evidence furnished by the assessee. However considering the facts of the case, we are of the view that the additional evidence should be admitted, in the interest of natural justice. Accordingly, we admit the additional evidence filed by the assessee. In view the above, aforesaid issues requires to readjudication by taking into account the Assessment Year: 2009-10 additional evidence furnished by the assessee. Accordingly, we set aside the order of learned CIT(A) and restore all the issues to the file of Assessing Officer
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purpose.