SHRI AJIT KUMAR JAIN, (HUF),GUWAHATI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 225/GTY/2013Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati24 May 2022AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, which upheld the Assessing Officer's calculation of long-term capital gains. The assessee failed to provide corroborating evidence for their claim of earlier gold acquisition.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed gold was acquired before 1999, but the Assessing Officer noted it first appeared in a wealth-tax return for AY 1999-2000. The AO calculated capital gains based on a 1999 acquisition date. No evidence was provided to support the earlier acquisition claim.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the correct date of acquisition of gold for calculating long-term capital gains and the lack of evidence to support the assessee's claim of pre-1999 acquisition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “GUWAHATI BENCH, GAUHATI

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Manish Borad

order : May 24, 2022 ORDER Per Bench: The captioned appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the separate orders both dated 15.10.2012 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Siliguri [hereinafter as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to the ‘Act’.

2.

No one has put in appearance on behalf of the assessee despite notice. Therefore, we proceed to decide the appeals after hearing the ld. DR and going through the records.

3.

Since identical issues are involved in both the appeals hence the same have been taken together for adjudication. is taken as the lead case. ITA 224/GTY/2013 – The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that, the Assessment order is not based on correct facts and findings and is erroneous on points of law.

1.

2. For that, on the facts and the circumstances of the case and as well as on points of law, the Ld. Assessing officer erred in calculating an amount of Rs. 431703/- as long term capital gain and making the addition of the same in the total income of the appellant and the Ld. CIT (A) also erred in confirming the same. &225/GTY/2013 Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Shri Ajit Kr. Jain (HUF)

3. For that, any other ground/grounds may kindly be allowed to be urged at the time of hearing.”

4. A perusal of the above grounds of appeal reveals that the sole issue raised by the assessee is relating to calculation of the amount of long-term capital gain on sale of gold. The claim of the assessee is that the gold was acquired prior to year 1999 whereas the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee for the first time has shown the aforesaid gold in his wealth-tax return for assessment year 1999-2000. The Assessing Officer, therefore, took the date of acquisition of the aforesaid gold ornaments in the year 1999 and accordingly calculated the capital gains. There is nothing on the file corroborating the claim of the assessee that the gold was acquired prior to the year 1999. Even before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not furnish any evidence in support of his claim, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the calculation made by the Assessing Officer in respect of capital gains.

5. After hearing the ld. DR and going through the records, we do not find any reason to interfere with the aforesaid order of the ld. CIT(A) and the same is upheld. ITA 225/GTY/2013 – The facts and issues involved in this appeal are identical, therefore, in our findings given above, we do not find merit in this appeal of the assessee also.

6. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 24.05.2022.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →